Believing in a limited God

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Thundar
Having browsed thru some of the older threads within this forum, it seems that many questions have come about regarding what is not possible for God to do.

Whenever someone brings up such a scenario, I'm always reminded of this particular verse.

Luke 18:27
And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

I know many of you are not Christians, but I just wanted to point out that this above verse is generally the one that comes to mind when debating issues relating to God's capabilities.

I do not believe in a limited or flawed God, I believe in one that is full of infinite possibilities, all of which are filled with loving intentions. His loving nature is defined by the bible as being patient, kind, longsuffering, humble forgiving, and merciful.

My beliefs are not exclusively based on my faith of what's written in the bible, they are also based on the way in which the world works around me, and the actions of God that I've witnessed within my own life, as well as within the lives of others.

So for those of you who believe and have faith in limited or flawed God, whether that God represents yourself("yourself" meaning you control everything about your life) or a God of a spiritual religion, please explain to everyone what motivates you to believe in such a God?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Having browsed thru some of the older threads within this forum, it seems that many questions have come about regarding what is not possible for God to do.

Whenever someone brings up such a scenario, I'm always reminded of this particular verse.

Luke 18:27
And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

I know many of you are not Christians, but I just wanted to point out that this above verse is generally the one that comes to mind when debating issues relating to God's capabilities.

I do not believe in a limited or flawed God, I believe in one that is full of infinite possibilities, all of which are filled with loving intentions. His loving nature is defined by the bible as being patient, kind, longsuffering, humble forgiving, and merciful.

My beliefs are not exclusively based on my faith of what's written in the bible, they are also based on the way in which the world works around me, and the actions of God that I've witnessed within my own life, as well as within the lives of others.

So for those of you who believe and have faith in limited or flawed God, whether that God represents yourself("yourself" meaning you control everything about your life) or a God of a spiritual religion, please explain to everyone what motivates you to believe in such a God?

I think you have misunderstood why people point out the idea of a limited or flawed god. Christian mythology has a fundamental flaw. Simply put, a god that needs followers is not an omnipotent god. The fact that we are needed by god, or even loved by god, shows that god (the Christian god) is not complete.

lord xyz
A flawed God is more plausible though.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
A flawed God is more plausible though.

Unless you believe in a perfect god. wink

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you have misunderstood why people point out the idea of a limited or flawed god. Christian mythology has a fundamental flaw. Simply put, a god that needs followers is not an omnipotent god. The fact that we are needed by god, or even loved by god, shows that god (the Christian god) is not complete.

Well I don't really believe God needs us per say, and I'm sure many like yourself would debate whether or not we truly need him. All personal biases aside for the moment, if you had proof that such a loving God exists, wouldn't you want to have a truly loving relationship with him?

Not "love" defined in the way that the world describes it, but an unconditional love that never changes - always endures, and will always be there for you. Wouldn't it be a wonderful experience to be able to express that same type of unconditional love back to a God who loved you this way?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Well I don't really believe God needs us per say, and I'm sure many like yourself would debate whether or not we truly need him. All personal biases aside for the moment, if you had proof that such a loving God exists, wouldn't you want to have a truly loving relationship with him?

Not "love" defined in the way that the world describes it, but an unconditional love that never changes - always endures, and will always be there for you. Wouldn't it be a wonderful experience to be able to express that same type of unconditional love back to a God who loved you this way?

If such a god existed, I would already be loved by that god. Love reaches out and does not require anything in return.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Unless you believe in a perfect god. wink No. confused

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
No. confused

Don't be confused. It's me. I was just being a smart ass. wink

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If such a god existed, I would already be loved by that god. Love reaches out and does not require anything in return.

And I'm sure we're all loved by such a God unconditionally. But wouldn't you truly desire to have a loving relationship with someone whose love was perfect? One that isn't just comprised of the unconditional love he gives to you, but is also comprised of the unconditional love you give to him?(I'm using the terms "him" and "he" figuratively of course, as God is neither male of female).

EDIT: That was a bad mistake I must admit.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
And I'm sure we're all loved by such a God unconditionally. But wouldn't you truly desire to have a loving relationship with someone whose love was perfect? One that isn't comprised of the unconditional love he gives to you, but is also comprised of the unconditional love you give to him?(I'm using the terms "him" and "he" figuratively of course, as God is neither male of female).

What you are asking me to do is contemplate a loving relationship with Superman.

I am alive. That is proof of my relationship with God, however, I am not separate from God, and God is not separate from me.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What you are asking me to do is contemplate a loving relationship with Superman.

I am alive. That is proof of my relationship with God, however, I am not separate from God, and God is not separate from me.

No, I'm actually asking you to contemplate thinking about love as something that exists apart from yourself, and to think about it as something that is freely given to you. I think that if one wants to call themselves loving and demonstrate love in any relationship, then they will attempt to freely give the love they've received back to the one who has given it to them.

I believe that when you don't reciprocate unconditional love back to the person who has given this type of love to you -- then at some point, you have forcefully made a choice to seperate yourself from having a loving relationship with this person.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
No, I'm actually asking you to contemplate thinking about love as something that exists apart from yourself, and to think about it as something that is freely given to you. I think that if one wants to call themselves loving and demonstrate love in any relationship, then they will attempt to freely give the love they've received back to the one who has given it to them.

I believe that when you don't reciprocate unconditional love back to the person who has given this type of love to you -- then at some point, you have forcefully made a choice to separate yourself from having a loving relationship with this person.

Generally I agree with you, however, I don't believe in a "Love" that is separate from me.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Generally I agree with you, however, I don't believe in a "Love" that is separate from me.

Then we don't believe in the same type of love. And well...we don't agree. Moving on, what motivates you to want to be a "God." And what types of responsabilities do you think come along with being "God"?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Then we don't believe in the same type of love. And well...we don't agree. Moving on, what motivates you to want to be a "God." And what types of responsabilities do you think come along with being "God"?

I don't want to be a god. confused Is that what you hear when I say "I am not separate from God"?

Your finger is not separate from your hand. If it is separate, it no longer lives. The only way I can be separate from God is by not existing.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't want to be a god. confused Is that what you hear when I say "I am not separate from God"?

Your finger is not separate from your hand. If it is separate, it no longer lives. The only way I can be separate from God is by not existing.

It seems to me though that you believe that your finger can never be separated from you. Logically of course, it most certainly can.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
It seems to me though that you believe that your finger can never be separated from you. Logically of course, it most certainly can.

However, it never has to repent for it's sins and be baptised before it can join my body. laughing out loud

Thundar
You do indeed want to be a God if you believe that you cannot exist apart from God. By doing so, you are essentially stating that you have complete control over your existence.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it never has to repent for it's sins and be baptised before it can join my body. laughing out loud

Depends on how you look at it. If you make the analogy of sin being like an infection, then yes..you would have to cleanse the infection out of your finger before it spreads to the rest of your body. If you couldn't do this, then the only other alternative you would have is to get rid of the finger.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Depends on how you look at it. If you make the analogy of sin being like an infection, then yes..you would have to cleanse the infection out of your finger before it spreads to the rest of your body. If you couldn't do this, then the only other alternative you would have is to get rid of the finger.

However, you believe that the finger starts with infection. Don't you believe that we are born into sin?

My belief about God is more like gravity. You don't have to believe in gravity to be held to the ground. Also, is it the love that gravity has for us that keeps us from floating off into space? And if we jump off a high building, is that sin when we hit the ground?

Mindship
Originally posted by lord xyz
A flawed God is more plausible though.
You mean like, say, Thor? wink

But seriously, your statement is interesting. Please explain.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, you believe that the finger starts with infection. Don't you believe that we are born into sin?


The finger analogy was really a poor one on both our parts, as it doesn't really identify who or what the cause of "sin" is. To answer your question, yes I do believe we are born into "sin", but I don't believe that God is responsable for sin.

I believe that he allows it though, because he wants to prove himself to us as being loving, by allowing us the ability to freely love him. This doesn't necessarily mean that God needs to prove himself, but he does it anyway..cause well he's loving and he's cool like that. wink

I also believe he allows sin because he knew that it was the only way to establish a loving relationship with us. I don't think God wanted to spend eternity with a bunch of mechanical tools that he could tell what to do every minute of the day. I think he really does want to have a true loving relationship with us all. Of course at the same time, he also wants us to understand what real love is all about, which is why he presents his word to us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My belief about God is more like gravity. You don't have to believe in gravity to be held to the ground. Also, is it the love that gravity has for us that keeps us from floating off into space? And if we jump off a high building, is that sin when we hit the ground?


Well you don't have to believe in gravity, but you still know gravity -- or something similar to it exists that holds you to the ground. To deny such a force's obvious existence is very foolish.

Shakyamunison

Thundar
Originally posted by Mindship
You mean like, say, Thor? wink

But seriously, your statement is interesting. Please explain.

I could never have faith or follow a god like Thor. I mean the guy spends most of his time trying to see whose pants he can get into, like most of the viking god's.laughing

Roman and Greek god's were even worse. They'd sleep with just about anything. Funnily enough, Christian theology and history tells us that most of these god's were probably representative of condemned angels that roamed the earth during pre flood times.

In the bible, I believe the book of Jude makes reference to some of the Roman god's and their half-demon children by referring to them as "heroes of old." I think most Greek and Roman mythology is based on these fallen angels exploits.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you have misunderstood why people point out the idea of a limited or flawed god. Christian mythology has a fundamental flaw. Simply put, a god that needs followers is not an omnipotent god. The fact that we are needed by god, or even loved by god, shows that god (the Christian god) is not complete.
God doesn't need us = fail. God wants us to love Him, that is a sign of compassion and love that adds to His perfection. An unloving and apathic God is flawed.

Alliance
Yeah. Hence you make him "loving and caring."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
God doesn't need us = fail. God wants us to love Him, that is a sign of compassion and love that adds to His perfection. An unloving and apathic God is flawed.

A god that needs is incomplete. A god that wants is not in charge. Perfection cannot be added too. Every god is flawed.

Alliance
Agree with the first two sentances.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
Agree with the first two sentances.

What was your problem with "Every god is flawed."?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A god that needs is incomplete. A god that wants is not in charge. Perfection cannot be added too. Every god is flawed.
Perfection only indicates without flaw in the context, everything good on top of that is a bonus. Once again, he does not need. He is in charge, however, He obviously doesn't desire to rip free will from us, I do not doubt that could.

Alliance
Logic seems to contradict that. If he is perfect, then he does not want or need anything.

Those are human (read: imperfect) constructs.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
Logic seems to contradict that. If he is perfect, then he does not want or need anything.

Those are human (read: imperfect) constructs. Nope, you are simply making an assumption based on what you believe is true although it is entirely unprovable in your favour. You are assuming that wants are a human construct, however, that is entirely speculation. Contrary to your thinking is the idea that God does have wants and can still be perfect.

Wanting is not necessarily a weakness in the least, in fact it is a strength in many cases, to deny that would be idiocy. It can be a weakness, but it is not applicable in God's case as His wants lead to good things, not bad things.

Alliance
Well since we are both humans, I find it difficult to escape defining things in human terms.

You don't speak for god. Don't pretend to. If something wants something, its wither spoiled or lacking something. Either condition does not indicate perfection.

Nellinator
The Bible speaks for Him and it says that there are things He wants...Originally posted by Alliance
If something wants something, its wither spoiled or lacking something.Just wondering what you are basing that on.

Alliance
The bible is archaic and edited by humans repeatedly. You are also assuming that humans have the divine ability to properly interpret the bible (of which there is certainly evidence to the contrary).

I basing this argument on logic.

Nellinator
Not really, but that's not really applicable to this debate.

What logic did the quoted statement come from though? I'm just wondering if you got an example or something because it seems slightly extreme...

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
The Bible speaks for Him and it says that there are things He wants...

1) Are you even familiar with the history of the book you call the bible? And by "history", I don't mean anything that's written in the book. I mean the back story of how it came to be a published text in its current format? And I'm not talking about just the King James version, but the several before that as well. As in I'm talking abou tthe human beings who decided to get together and pick and chose what was going in it as the "divine word of god".

2) If god has so much to say, why doesn't he open his all knowing mouth and speak to us himself? You say he loves us so much...like a parent loves his child. When was the last time you saw a parent tell his kid to take the garbage out but beat him because he meant to say wash the dishes? Who ****ed up, the parent or the kid? If god has something to say, let him say it.

Nellinator
1) Yes I am well aware.

2) To what are you referring because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me out of its context?

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
1) Yes I am well aware.

2) To what are you referring because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me out of its context?

1) Then exercise some of that profound knowledge when you address the bible and what's in it.

2) It's pretty simple. If god has something to say, then he should just ****ing saying it so we can all hear it and understand. As it is, he's holding his retarded child responsible for being retarded.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not really, but that's not really applicable to this debate.

What logic did the quoted statement come from though? I'm just wondering if you got an example or something because it seems slightly extreme...

It very applicable, especially when you make absurd claims.

Those were the two options that came to mind. If you have better logic, present it. But actually address the question, not just the fact that you don't like it.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
1) Then exercise some of that profound knowledge when you address the bible and what's in it.

2) It's pretty simple. If god has something to say, then he should just ****ing saying it so we can all hear it and understand. As it is, he's holding his retarded child responsible for being retarded.
1) It wasn't applicable. Assumptions need to be made, if you can't do it and stay on topic then you can't debate.
2) That = Bible = simple = not applicable to the current debate.

Originally posted by Alliance
It very applicable, especially when you make absurd claims.

Those were the two options that came to mind. If you have better logic, present it. But actually address the question, not just the fact that you don't like it.
Not absurb, once again, assumptions need to be made. Stay on topic please.

I want a free car, I won't get one and I'll be okay without it. If I get it, that would be sweet, however, my want for a car isn't a weakness. There does that example work for you? You're making God should like a lonely teenager that's depressed because no one loves Him. Thats obviously not the way it works.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
1) It wasn't applicable. Assumptions need to be made, if you can't do it and stay on topic then you can't debate.
2) That = Bible = simple = not applicable to the current debate.


Your profound knowledge of the history of the bible is not relevant? I couldn't have said it any better myself. However, it's totally relevant; very well documented; and severly damning to your argument. But, I imagine that's why it's "not applicable".

That? Bible? Simple? "not applicable"? "Bullshit too deep to dig up a response?"

Nellinator
We are talking about whether certain characteristics of God are flaws, not whether the Bible is valid. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you elsewhere.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
...I want a free car, I won't get one and I'll be okay without it. If I get it, that would be sweet, however, my want for a car isn't a weakness. There does that example work for you? You're making God should like a lonely teenager that's depressed because no one loves Him. Thats obviously not the way it works.

But why would god want a car? confused


laughing

peejayd
Originally posted by Thundar
Having browsed thru some of the older threads within this forum, it seems that many questions have come about regarding what is not possible for God to do.

Whenever someone brings up such a scenario, I'm always reminded of this particular verse.

Luke 18:27
And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

I know many of you are not Christians, but I just wanted to point out that this above verse is generally the one that comes to mind when debating issues relating to God's capabilities.

I do not believe in a limited or flawed God, I believe in one that is full of infinite possibilities, all of which are filled with loving intentions. His loving nature is defined by the bible as being patient, kind, longsuffering, humble forgiving, and merciful.

My beliefs are not exclusively based on my faith of what's written in the bible, they are also based on the way in which the world works around me, and the actions of God that I've witnessed within my own life, as well as within the lives of others.

So for those of you who believe and have faith in limited or flawed God, whether that God represents yourself("yourself" meaning you control everything about your life) or a God of a spiritual religion, please explain to everyone what motivates you to believe in such a God?

* i believe God is limited in the sense that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and it's impossible for Him to do so (Hebrews 6:18)... but that does not mean God is flawed... God's truth endures forever (Psalms 100:5) which means He is someone we can depend on... someone who promises life eternal life, a being who cannot lie... being not able to lie does not limit God as an Almighty entity... wink

* i would like to extend my apologies... i cannot respond anymore to any discussions - as active as before - because i already had a job with hectic skeds... but i will still give some of my comments or reactions sporadically... thanks, everyone... happy discussing here in KMC... smile

Thundar
Originally posted by peejayd
* i believe God is limited in the sense that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and it's impossible for Him to do so (Hebrews 6:18)... but that does not mean God is flawed... God's truth endures forever (Psalms 100:5) which means He is someone we can depend on... someone who promises life eternal life, a being who cannot lie... being not able to lie does not limit God as an Almighty entity... wink

* i would like to extend my apologies... i cannot respond anymore to any discussions - as active as before - because i already had a job with hectic skeds... but i will still give some of my comments or reactions sporadically... thanks, everyone... happy discussing here in KMC... smile

Without getting into excessive recitations of scripture, I think the problem here peejayd, is that you're confusing "cannot" with "will not." Can God lie? Of course he can. But he chooses not to lie. Why? Simple, because he's loving.

Edit

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A god that needs is incomplete. A god that wants is not in charge. Perfection cannot be added too. Every god is flawed.

I think the problem here is that yourself and others of similar views believe a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw. I actually view this desire as a strength, and yet another example of God's perfection. I wouldn't worship a God, nor would I believe any God could truly be loving and perfect, if he didn't have a sincere desire to be with me, or if he only desired to have a relationship with me based on what I could give him. Likewise, if I truly love God, then I'll value more so having a loving relationship with him, as oppossed to caring about any physical or spiritual gifts he could give me.

This is not to say that a loving relationship doesn't consist of giving and receiving gifts, but it is to say that a truly loving relationship isn't exclusively based on what one can receive or what one can give.

It's based on sincerely desiring to see the person that you love happy, even when at times giving this other person happiness may cause you much misery. It also consists of "righteousnous" and will not turn a blind eye to a friend in need, particularly a friend who has been the victim of evil circumstances. This type of love is demonstrative of what the God of the bible exemplifies.

All this being stated, for those of you who disagree with the above - please extrapolate on why you believe desiring to have a loving relationship with someone is a sign of weakness, as oppossed to a strength.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
I think the problem here is that yourself and others of similar views believe a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw. I actually view this desire as a strength, and yet another example of God's perfection. I wouldn't worship a God, nor would I believe any God could truly be loving and perfect, if he didn't have a sincere desire to be with me, or if he only desired to have a relationship with me based on what I could give him. Likewise, if I truly love God, then I'll value more so having a loving relationship with him, as oppossed to caring about any physical or spiritual gifts he could give me.

This is not to say that a loving relationship doesn't consist of giving and receiving gifts, but it is to say that a truly loving relationship isn't exclusively based on what one can receive or what one can give.

It's based on sincerely desiring to see the person that you love happy, even when at times giving this other person happiness may cause you much misery. It also consists of "righteousnous" and will not turn a blind eye to a friend in need, particularly a friend who has been the victim of evil circumstances. This type of love is demonstrative of what the God of the bible exemplifies.

All this being stated, for those of you who disagree with the above - please extrapolate on why you believe desiring to have a loving relationship with someone is a sign of weakness, as oppossed to a strength.


I don't see a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw, I see it as an impossibility. Also, a true omnipotent god would not want to be worshiped. A true god would not want period.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't see a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw, I see it as an impossibility.


Why do you see it as an impossibility?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, a true omnipotent god would not want to be worshiped. A true god would not want period.


I think "worship" in God's case, refers to a humble respect. Similar to that a parent would have with a child. If you had a loving relationship with your parent, you will always carry a certain amount of respect and reverence for them.

But even though God is worthy of worship, I sincerely doubt that his main desire is for us to worship him. He wouldn't call us "friends", if that's really what he wanted, and quite frankly he could easily force us all to worship him if he so desired.

I believe his main desire is for us to be loving children, and to share this love with him.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Why do you see it as an impossibility?

The only way we can understand something is to make an image of the thing we are trying to understand in our minds. This image is a model that we can use to predict outcomes. All models have a common problem. At the edge of our understanding the predictions brake down and paradoxes arise. A fundamental rule to remember is that a model never completely reflects the true nature of reality (or God). You can never accurately describe to me the true nature of reality (or God). An all loving god and a omnipotent god is a paradox.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The only way we can understand something is to make an image of the thing we are trying to understand in our minds. This image is a model that we can use to predict outcomes. All models have a common problem. At the edge of our understanding the predictions brake down and paradoxes arise. A fundamental rule to remember is that a model never completely reflects the true nature of reality (or God). You can never accurately describe to me the true nature of reality (or God). An all loving god and a omnipotent god is a paradox.

So basically you're expressing your belief with the above, or specifically the ideal that you place your faith in. My belief is obviously very different than yours, as I believe that although one may not be able to completely understand reality (or God) in this lifetime, they can still know that reality(or Love) exists.

The only time the paradox comes into play is when you express yourself as not being able to grasp the true nature of reality, but then go on to say that reality (or God) cannot be completely loving. How would you know such a thing, if it is impossible for one to discern the true nature of God? So as you can see, you've essentially contradicted yourself with such a stance by inadvertently(or purposefully) defining the nature of reality as not "completely loving."

Moving back to the original topic - aside from what you believe to be logical or paradoxical, what motivates you to worshipping a limited God, one that can only bring death to you upon the end of this life?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
So basically you're expressing your belief with the above, or specifically the ideal that you place your faith in. My belief is obviously very different than yours, as I believe that although one may not be able to completely understand reality (or God) in this lifetime, they can still know that reality(or Love) exists.

The only time the paradox comes into play is when you express yourself as not being able to grasp the true nature of reality, but then go on to say that reality (or God) cannot be completely loving. How would you know such a thing, if it is impossible for one to discern the true nature of God? So as you can see, you've essentially contradicted yourself with such a stance by inadvertently(or purposefully) defining the nature of reality as not "completely loving."

Moving back to the original topic - aside from what you believe to be logical or paradoxical, what motivates you to worshipping a limited God, one that can only bring death to you upon the end of this life?

I never defined the nature of reality. My only point is that the true nature of reality cannot be understood or communicated. In other words, you don't know what the truth this, but nether do I.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Thundar
Why do you see it as an impossibility?


Like Shaky said, a "God" wanting anything is a contradiction. Omnipotence cannot desire anything, for omnipotence has all, omnipotence is complete and infinite.


If your God "wants" anything, than this being is limitted.




Originally posted by Thundar
I think "worship" in God's case, refers to a humble respect. Similar to that a parent would have with a child. If you had a loving relationship with your parent, you will always carry a certain amount of respect and reverence for them.



I agree, however, a loving parent would never send thier child to Hell for disobeying them.





Originally posted by Thundar
But even though God is worthy of worship, I sincerely doubt that his main desire is for us to worship him. He wouldn't call us "friends", if that's really what he wanted, and quite frankly he could easily force us all to worship him if he so desired.



Like I said before....If God was truly omnipotent, he/she would have no desire.






Originally posted by Thundar
I believe his main desire is for us to be loving children, and to share this love with him.


The Christian perception of what Love is, is a whole other story, but like me and Shaky are saying...for God to want anything makes him/her limitted.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never defined the nature of reality. My only point is that the true nature of reality cannot be understood or communicated. In other words, you don't know what the truth this, but nether do I.


Yeah, but you see you continue to just contradict yourself and create another paradox. If truth can't be understood or communicated, then how are you communicating with me right now, or how is one to now assume what you've stated above to be true? You see where I'm going with this?

Your rationale is extremely illogical at this point. Sure, we may not have a complete grasp of everything that represents truth, or perhaps it would be more accurately described as us not being able to "handle the truth" - but one can definitely know that truth exists, and the basic things that it is comprised of. Logically - neither of us would be able to continue this argument if it didn't exist in some shape or form.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Thundar
Yeah, but you see you continue to just contradict yourself and create another paradox. If truth can't be understood or communicated, then how are you communicating with me right now, or how is one to now assume what you've stated above to be true? You see where I'm going with this?

Your rationale is extremely illogical at this point. Sure, we may not have a complete grasp of everything that represents truth, or perhaps it would be more accurately described as us not being able to "handle the truth" - but one can definitely know that truth exists, and the basic things that it is comprised of. Logically - neither of us would be able to continue this argument if it didn't exist in some shape or form.



You should talk Whob.....



You who have stated that what you speak is "truth" because your "faith" makes it true. The most illogical and unsupported statement I have ever read. thumb down

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Yeah, but you see you continue to just contradict yourself and create another paradox. If truth can't be understood or communicated, then how are you communicating with me right now, or how is one to now assume what you've stated above to be true? You see where I'm going with this?

Your rationale is extremely illogical at this point. Sure, we may not have a complete grasp of everything that represents truth, or perhaps it would be more accurately described as us not being able to "handle the truth" - but one can definitely know that truth exists, and the basic things that it is comprised of. Logically - neither of us would be able to continue this argument if it didn't exist in some shape or form.

That is why we need to stick with those things we know for sure.

The ten factors are as follows:
(1) Appearance: attributes of things discernible from the outside, such as color, form, shape, and behavior.

(2) Nature: the inherent disposition or quality of a thing or being that cannot be discerned from the outside. T'ien-t'ai characterizes it as unchanging and irreplaceable. The nature of fire, for instance, is unchanging and cannot be replaced by that of water. He also refers to the "true nature," which he regards as the ultimate truth, or Buddha nature.

(3) Entity: the essence of life that permeates and integrates appearance and nature. These first three factors describe the reality of life itself.

The next six factors, from the fourth, power, through the ninth, manifest effect, explain the functions and workings of life.

(4) Power: life's potential energy.

(5) Influence: the action or movement produced when life's inherent power is activated.

(6) Internal cause: the cause latent in life that produces an effect of the same quality as itself, i.e., good, evil, or neutral.

(7) Relation: the relationship of indirect causes to the internal cause. Indirect causes are various conditions, both internal and external, that help the internal cause produce an effect.

(8) Latent effect: the effect produced in life when an internal cause is activated through its relationship with various conditions.

(9) Manifest effect: the tangible, perceivable result that emerges in time as an expression of a latent effect and therefore of an internal cause, again through its relationship with various conditions. Miao-lo (711-782) regarded the Buddhist law of causality described by the four factors from internal cause to manifest effect as the distinctive characteristic of the ten factors. It concerns the cause and effect for attaining Buddhahood.

(10) Consistency from beginning to end: the unifying factor among the ten factors. It indicates that all of the other nine factors from the beginning (appearance) to the end (manifest effect) are consistently and harmoniously interrelated. All nine factors thus consistently and harmoniously express the same condition of existence at any given moment.

Thundar
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Like Shaky said, a "God" wanting anything is a contradiction. Omnipotence cannot desire anything, for omnipotence has all, omnipotence is complete and infinite.

If your God "wants" anything, than this being is limitted.


Omnipotence could consist of "desire" for all you or I know. Neither of us can completely say what it consists of, as we are limited beings. This has been repeated to you many times, in many threads -- but you just don't seem to get this rather simple concept. Since you believe that omnipotence does not exist anyway, your point is a rather moot one.


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree, however, a loving parent would never send thier child to Hell for disobeying them.


Buddha's harry ass man, get another argument dude. I'm tired of you posting this same one in every thread. If you can't understand how Love can't exist apart from righteousnous you're a lost cause. I refuse to respond to this argument anymore, as it has already been refuted multiple times to you and others in many other threads. Stay on topic with this one or else face being reported.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Thundar
Omnipotence could consist of "desire" for all you or I know. Neither of us can completely say what it consists of, as we are limited beings. This has been repeated to you many times, in many threads -- but you just don't seem to get this rather simple concept. Since you believe that omnipotence does not exist anyway, your point is a rather moot one.



God Whob, your hypocrisy is alarming...


First you claim to know absolute truth because of your Faith, now you are arguing that we cannot know Absolute Truth because we are limitted.


Omnipotence by definition lacks desire, however, now you mean to change the definition, arguing that omnipotence can contain desire....desire is a force for the limitted.

To want something in turn means you DONT HAVE SOMETHING



If there is something you LACK then you are NOT truly omnipotent. It's that fkn simple.





Originally posted by Thundar
Buddha's harry ass man, get another argument dude. I'm tired of you posting this same one in every thread. If you can't understand how Love can't exist apart from righteousnous you're a lost cause. I refuse to respond to this argument anymore, as it has already been refuted multiple times to you and others in many other threads. Stay on topic with this one or else face being reported.



This is the most cowardly answer I have ever read on KMC, congradulations.


thumb down



The question was never truly answered, and your beleif in "righteousness" is nothing more than a human fabricated idea of "justice" which does not exist in nature.



TORTURE IS NOT AN ACT OF LOVE



THAT ****ING SIMPLE....YOU DO NOT TORTURE SOMEONE YOU LOVE....NO IF'S, AND'S, OR BUT'S.


IF GOD CAN TORTURE ANYONE, OR ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE TORTURED, THEN HE IS NOT LOVE....



*************


And report me all you want Whob, you'd be banned for socking first.

Thundar
On topic, for those who believe in a limited God, what motivates you to follow a limited God..knowing that only death awaits those who follow such a God?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
On topic, for those who believe in a limited God, what motivates you to follow a limited God..knowing that only death awaits those who follow such a God?

I don't think anyone believes in a limited god. I think a lot of people think the god that you worship is a limited god. There is a big difference.

Thundar
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God Whob, your hypocrisy is alarming...


First you claim to know absolute truth because of your Faith, now you are arguing that we cannot know Absolute Truth because we are limitted.


Knowing truth(or God) and completely understanding what makes up truth(or God) are two different things. For example, I can know someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I have a complete understanding of that someone. The understanding part comes with building a relationship with that someone, and whether or not that individual at some point chooses to share everything there is to know about themselves with myself. This is a rather simplistic premise, which I'm surprised you haven't been able to pick up on within the context of any of our other debates.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Omnipotence by definition lacks desire, however, now you mean to change the definition, arguing that omnipotence can contain desire....desire is a force for the limitted.

To want something in turn means you DONT HAVE SOMETHING



If there is something you LACK then you are NOT truly omnipotent. It's that fkn simple.


The point I have always made is that you and I are not omnipotent nor are we omniscient, so we do not have the ability to state what is possible to do with omnipotence or omniscience. Again, another simple concept that seems to have alluded you. All of this is a very moot point anyway, as you have already vehemently denied either of these two things existing.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think anyone believes in a limited god. I think a lot of people think the god that you worship is a limited god. There is a big difference.


You believe that you yourself are God in a sense, and that God can never be separated from you. I believe the only thing that makes me part of God, is the grace that he has extended to me thru Jesus Christ. So yes, you do believe in a limited God, as you believe he cannot exist apart from you.

All of this aside, what motivates you to continue living in this world - believing that only death awaits you at the end of your life? As for myself, I could find no happiness or joy in life, despite what it offered me -- if Love didn't exist apart from this life, or if it was never present within it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
You believe that you yourself are God in a sense, and that God can never be separated from you. I believe the only thing that makes me part of God, is the grace that he has extended to me thru Jesus Christ. So yes, you do believe in a limited God, as you believe he cannot exist apart from you.

All of this aside, what motivates you to continue living in this world - believing that only death awaits you at the end of your life? As for myself, I could find no happiness or joy in life, despite what it offered me -- if Love didn't exist apart from this life, or if it was never present within it.

I don't believe in a "god". I simply have to talk to people who do believe in a "god". I use expedient means to communicate with you.

If you want to know what I truly believe, I can recommend a book or two.

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in a "god". I simply have to talk to people who do believe in a "god". I use expedient means to communicate with you.

If you want to know what I truly believe, I can recommend a book or two.

Well technically speaking, you do believe in a god, however, as stated before the god in your life just represents yourself, as you believe the ultimate outcome of your life is dependant upon yourself.

That being stated, is it fair to say that your sole motivation for living this life, is based on living for yourself?

EDIT: Thank you for offering the book recommendations, but I respectfully decline your offer.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
Well technically speaking, you do believe in a god, however, as stated before the god in your life just represents yourself, as you believe the ultimate outcome of your life is dependant upon yourself.

That being stated, is it fair to say that your sole motivation for living this life, is based on living for yourself?

EDIT: Thank you for offering the book recommendations, but I respectfully decline your offer.

Just because you say it, does not make it true. You are confusing my connectedness it God, with selfishness. Buddhism is not selfish, and you really should learn what another person believes before you speak for them.

I do not worship a god. Worship is silliness from my point of view.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Thundar
Knowing truth(or God) and completely understanding what makes up truth(or God) are two different things. For example, I can know someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I have a complete understanding of that someone. The understanding part comes with building a relationship with that someone, and whether or not that individual at some point chooses to share everything there is to know about themselves with myself. This is a rather simplistic premise, which I'm surprised you haven't been able to pick up on within the context of any of our other debates.


This concept you speak of I am very well aware of, and in tune with. However, what you say now contradicts mainstream Christianity in general. You speak idealy about understanding others, understanding where other people are coming from, which is a beautiful idea, yet you judge those you do not know.


Such hypocrisy is unadmirable. We are all hypocrites yes, but when we recognize this, we should try to limit our hypocrisy as much as possible.

Conservative Christianity does not call for empathy. It does not call for us to understand another, in fact, it calls for us to close our mind and think one way. The discrimination and judgement of Atheists, Buddhists, Homosexuals, and people of other faiths fails to represent the point you made above.



And your concept of building a relationship with God, therefore claiming to know him is unreliable, since nearly every Christian claims they know God, but have contradiction descriptions of him.



Most people who have claimed to know God's will have also proven to be frauds.






Originally posted by Thundar
The point I have always made is that you and I are not omnipotent nor are we omniscient, so we do not have the ability to state what is possible to do with omnipotence or omniscience. Again, another simple concept that seems to have alluded you. All of this is a very moot point anyway, as you have already vehemently denied either of these two things existing.



Knowing that we do not have the ability to fully understand omnipotence, why do you argue that God is in fact, omnipotent ? erm



You are contradicting yourself here Whob....Shakymunison has already made the point that we cannot know absolute truth, yet you earlier claimed that you could know absolute truth through faith, and NOW you are arguing that no one can possible know absolute truth because we are limitted...


Please make up your mind thumb down

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
We are talking about whether certain characteristics of God are flaws, not whether the Bible is valid. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you elsewhere.

Telling me what we are or are not talking about isn't really the point. A completely valid question has been posed to you. You can't answer it, or you won't. If you want to know about the flaws of god, that's between your concept of him and your ability to question with logic. But if you know the history of teh bible, then how can you honestly call it the infallible word of an all knowing god?

Thundar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just because you say it, does not make it true. You are confusing my connectedness it God, with selfishness. Buddhism is not selfish, and you really should learn what another person believes before you speak for them.

I do not worship a god. Worship is silliness from my point of view.

I'm not confusing anything, everything that comes from my post is essentially what you've presented at some point within our discussions. Your religion or god is indeed self oriented, as it centers around doing what pleases yourself. You believe in following your own "truth" as you put it, and by making up your own version of truth, you are essentially claiming that you are God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
I'm not confusing anything, everything that comes from my post is essentially what you've presented at some point within our discussions. Your religion or god is indeed self oriented, as it centers around doing what pleases yourself. You believe in following your own "truth" as you put it, and by making up your own version of truth, you are essentially claiming that you are God.

You may have interpreted that from what I wrote, but I never wrote that. I take responsibility for myself, but that is not self oriented.

I also claim that you are God. I use "I" language because I cannot speak for you.

If I believed in following my own truth, I would have claimed that truth was something that could be followed.

Thundar
I only responded to two of your posts, as most of what you've posted delves into homosexuality, atheism, and other topics which have little to do with the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This concept you speak of I am very well aware of, and in tune with. However, what you say now contradicts mainstream Christianity in general. You speak idealy about understanding others, understanding where other people are coming from, which is a beautiful idea, yet you judge those you do not know.


I don't speak about having a complete understanding of anything, the only things I speak about are those things that I have observed. My judgements are solely based on these observations.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And your concept of building a relationship with God, therefore claiming to know him is unreliable, since nearly every Christian claims they know God, but have contradiction descriptions of him.


Knowing God, and completely understanding him are two completely different things. This has already been explained in the prior post, no need for us to go in circles about it. One gradually builds a relationship with God and understands him better when they study and meditate upon his word. If one doesn't wish to get to know God, then that's the only thing that limits them to having a loving relationship with him.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Knowing that we do not have the ability to fully understand omnipotence, why do you argue that God is in fact, omnipotent ? erm


Faith and love are the defining things that prove my belief in God's omnipotence. I've also observed what he can do through my faith and love for him, and what loving things that God has done for myself, yourself, and countless others.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thundar
...Faith and love are the defining things that prove my belief in God's omnipotence...

This is the main point where we disagree. I do not believe that love is proof of anything.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Thundar
Faith and love are the defining things that prove my belief in God's omnipotence.


"Love and Faith" are NOT proof of ANYTHING



I LOVE everyone in my life, and I have Faith in Buddhist teachings....How is your "love and faith" proof, while mine isn't ?

peejayd
Originally posted by Thundar
Without getting into excessive recitations of scripture, I think the problem here peejayd, is that you're confusing "cannot" with "will not."

"In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal;"
Titus 1:2

* i'm not confused, my friend...

Originally posted by Thundar
Can God lie?

* no, according to the verse above...

Originally posted by Thundar
Of course he can.

* moreover, read this:

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us:"
Hebrews 6:18

* it is impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
But he chooses not to lie. Why? Simple, because he's loving.

* God will not lie, simply because He cannot and it is impossible for Him to do so... wink

Thundar
Originally posted by peejayd
"In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal;"
Titus 1:2

* i'm not confused, my friend...



* no, according to the verse above...



* moreover, read this:

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us:"
Hebrews 6:18


My description of what God can do was a poor one. I'll admit that. So let me further extrapolate. God is the word and is himself defined as truth, so the impossibility lies not in his ability to lie, it lies(no pun intended) in our ability to prove him to be a liar. Or to simplify, we can't use the Truth to call the Truth a liar. So again, the limitation is on us, not on God. Or as Job put it --

Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Job 42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Even if a man(or demon) were to say to God he was lying, he'd have no ability to prove his Word untrue, since he doesn't possess full knowledge or full understanding of God's Word, or what he has defined within his Word to be a lie.

So everytime you or I attempted to call God a liar peejayd, he could just respond back to you with a simple "no I am not. You are the liar."
And based on your limited knowledge of what a lie is, the fact that God is omnipotent, and the fact that God's omnipotent Word represents Truth, you'd be unable to refute what God had defined you to be - and God would always be correct in what he defined you as.

All this being stated - with the knowledge of what a lie is, God has stated and demonstrated to us through his Word, that he will never use his knowledge in an evil way. Could he choose to use his Word in the way in which he defines "evil"? He sure could. But he chooses not to do so because he is loving.

*or to simplify peejayd..God is love..wink

EDIT: I gotta go to work right now, I'll respond to the other posts later.

Thundar
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"Love and Faith" are NOT proof of ANYTHING



I LOVE everyone in my life, and I have Faith in Buddhist teachings....How is your "love and faith" proof, while mine isn't ?

Okay. I'm on a break for now. So I guess I'll now respond to this.

When one has faith in Love existing only within the individual, or more specifically they individualize the concept of Love, they have already limited the ability of what their Love can do.

My faith allows me to believe that Love can do anything, and it can't be comprehended or completely understood by an individual(using the term "individual" loosely of course) who only understands Love from a limited perspective. Or as God puts it in his word --

John 1: 4,5

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Your Love is bound by your faith in friends, family, and your religion. My Love is not bound by my faith, nor is it bound by yours or anyone else's dark comprehensions of it - it exists apart from all of us, however, my faith in this Love is what proves the existence of it, as my faith in this Love allows it to produce good works through me.

You can never comprehend this Love Urizen, nor will you ever be able to control it - because it exists apart from the limited view of what you assume Love to be.

peejayd
Originally posted by Thundar
My description of what God can do was a poor one. I'll admit that. So let me further extrapolate. God is the word and is himself defined as truth, so the impossibility lies not in his ability to lie, it lies(no pun intended) in our ability to prove him to be a liar. Or to simplify, we can't use the Truth to call the Truth a liar. So again, the limitation is on us, not on God. Or as Job put it --

Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Job 42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

* the statement, "God can do everything", does not (in my humble opinion), in any way, nullifies other statements such as: "God cannot lie" or "it is impossible for God to lie"... because eventhough He is incapable of lying, it does not mean that He is flawed nor limited... He is still Almighty...

"For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Psalms 100:5

* God's truth endureth to all generations... and i believe that God cannot really lie because there is another entity who bears that title - The Liar...

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
John 8:44

* Satan, the Devil bears the title - "the father of lies" according to Jesus... there is no truth in Satan, the exact opposite of God who cannot lie... i hope you got my point, my friend... wink

Thundar
Originally posted by peejayd
* the statement, "God can do everything", does not (in my humble opinion), in any way, nullifies other statements such as: "God cannot lie" or "it is impossible for God to lie"... because eventhough He is incapable of lying, it does not mean that He is flawed nor limited... He is still Almighty...

"For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Psalms 100:5

* God's truth endureth to all generations... and i believe that God cannot really lie because there is another entity who bears that title - The Liar...



Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

God in his omnipotence - has already defined himself to be Truth and not to be liar, so that makes it only impossible for us to label him as a liar, but that does not make it impossible for him to lie.

Or looking at it from a broader perspective, lying is just another form of sin, and God has already defined himself to be sinless. Therefore, it is only impossible for us to define him as a sinner. So God does indeed know what sin is and how to sin, since well..he defined what it is. And being that he defined what it is, it is quite possible for him to act in the way in which he defined sin to be. But he won't -- or as God himself puts it...

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So the implication given is not that God can't change himself and commit this thing he defines as sin, but rather, in the perfection of his Love and grace as well as with his omnipotence, he chooses not to change, and will always stick adhere to Truth as he has defined it.


Originally posted by peejayd
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
John 8:44

* Satan, the Devil bears the title - "the father of lies" according to Jesus... there is no truth in Satan, the exact opposite of God who cannot lie... i hope you got my point, my friend... wink


This is a bit off-topic, but I felt it necessary to address it as perhaps I didn't word my post as well as I should have. As you have stated, God is not the Father of sin, however, in his perfection and Love he does allow it, knowing that his reign over it will allow the perfection of his Love to increase.

If God was indeed limited or incapable of doing anything, even sinning, then he would not be able to reign over sin. We know this to not be the case. I summarized this point in another thread quite well. I must admit, I was extremely confused on this topic myself and I got some clarity on it from Nellinator, and then prayed to God about it. Below is the original post regarding God's reign over sin.



All this being stated, I truly am greatful that I have been allowed to worship and get to know a loving God with this gift he's given me called "life." After having posted on this forum to you and many others, I have full faith and confidence now that he is indeed a God who will never abuse the power he possesses, one whose power and knowledge is beyond the comprehension of this world full of sin, and one who as you so graciously quoted -- consists of Truth that "endureth to all generations", a Truth that cannot be overcome by the "Father of lies" or any of those who purposefully attempt to mock and misrepresent his Word.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Thundar
Okay. I'm on a break for now. So I guess I'll now respond to this.


Thanks Whobdamandog, I'm flattered



Originally posted by Thundar
When one has faith in Love existing only within the individual, or more specifically they individualize the concept of Love, they have already limited the ability of what their Love can do.



I agree. You should take your own advice thumb up








Originally posted by Thundar
My faith allows me to believe that Love can do anything, and it can't be comprehended or completely understood by an individual(using the term "individual" loosely of course) who only understands Love from a limited perspective. Or as God puts it in his word --


I agree that Love cannot be defined by a single human being or even by a group of people, but we all understand it, because we all experience it in some way, shape, or form.

However, you are already limitting your own perception of Love when you define it as only existing within God. (Rendering everyone else's perception of Love irrelevant) How can you not see your own hypocrisy? erm







Originally posted by Thundar
John 1: 4,5

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.


Completely Irrelevant as you are not answering my actual question thumb down


My question was how is your Love and Faith valid while mine and Shaky's is not ? You are attempting to use a Biblical quote to prove the Bible valid, that is foolish and pathetic.


PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION










Originally posted by Thundar
Your Love is bound by your faith in friends, family, and your religion.



WRONG thumb down

My love is bound by NOTHING...all living things deserve Love, and to limit love is foolish.



Originally posted by Thundar
My Love is not bound by my faith, nor is it bound by yours or anyone else's dark comprehensions of it - it exists apart from all of us, however, my faith in this Love is what proves the existence of it, as my faith in this Love allows it to produce good works through me.



My love also allows me to produce good works through me...I guess that's proof that my Faith and Love are True...


God whob, you are such an idiot roll eyes (sarcastic)





Originally posted by Thundar
You can never comprehend this Love Urizen, nor will you ever be able to control it - because it exists apart from the limited view of what you assume Love to be.


How do you know what I assume Love to be ? I have never made an attempt to define it, nor have I ever explained my perception of it.



1) You automatically assume you know my stance on Love which you do NOT, and then go on to make stupid judgements based on what you assume. You are fool.


2) You say that we cannot define Love, or individualize it, yet you already limit your own perception of Love by claiming it can only exist in God....you already cut off the mystery of Love, and claimed to know its true essense and definition. You are a hypocrite.


3) YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION- you continue on with this semantic BULLSHIT about how you Love and Faith are true, because you BELIEVE they are true, but then you cannot separate your beleif from others.


You assume what mine and Shaky's perceptions are, then claim that our beleifs are false, while yours are true, because you "beleive them to be true"


How is your belief any more valid than our own?


Answer my ****ing question Whob

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Thundar
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

God in his omnipotence - has already defined himself to be Truth and not to be liar, so that makes it only impossible for us to label him as a liar, but that does not make it impossible for him to lie.

Or looking at it from a broader perspective, lying is just another form of sin, and God has already defined himself to be sinless. Therefore, it is only impossible for us to define him as a sinner. So God does indeed know what sin is and how to sin, since well..he defined what it is. And being that he defined what it is, it is quite possible for him to act in the way in which he defined sin to be. But he won't -- or as God himself puts it...

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So the implication given is not that God can't change himself and commit this thing he defines as sin, but rather, in the perfection of his Love and grace as well as with his omnipotence, he chooses not to change, and will always stick adhere to Truth as he has defined it.




This is a bit off-topic, but I felt it necessary to address it as perhaps I didn't word my post as well as I should have. As you have stated, God is not the Father of sin, however, in his perfection and Love he does allow it, knowing that his reign over it will allow the perfection of his Love to increase.

If God was indeed limited or incapable of doing anything, even sinning, then he would not be able to reign over sin. We know this to not be the case. I summarized this point in another thread quite well. I must admit, I was extremely confused on this topic myself and I got some clarity on it from Nellinator, and then prayed to God about it. Below is the original post regarding God's reign over sin.



All this being stated, I truly am greatful that I have been allowed to worship and get to know a loving God with this gift he's given me called "life." After having posted on this forum to you and many others, I have full faith and confidence now that he is indeed a God who will never abuse the power he possesses, one whose power and knowledge is beyond the comprehension of this world full of sin, and one who as you so graciously quoted -- consists of Truth that "endureth to all generations", a Truth that cannot be overcome by the "Father of lies" or any of those who purposefully attempt to mock and misrepresent his Word.

Keep up the good work brother. The Bible states that out of the abundance of the the heart the mouth speaks. The Word further states that you will know a tree by its fruit. Your words and the fruit that has come from those words appears to be of God. Thus, I believe that you are truly born again and that you know Jesus the Christ as I do. Keep on telling the world about Jesus, for you will be greatly rewarded when you stand before our Lord, our King, and our God: Jesus Christ.

Shakyamunison
I love it when one sock encourages another sock. laughing

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Keep up the good work brother. The Bible states that out of the abundance of the the heart the mouth speaks. The Word further states that you will know a tree by its fruit. Your words and the fruit that has come from those words appears to be of God. Thus, I believe that you are truly born again and that you know Jesus the Christ as I do. Keep on telling the world about Jesus, for you will be greatly rewarded when you stand before our Lord, our King, and our God: Jesus Christ.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

peejayd
Originally posted by Thundar
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

* i believe we are talking about the Father and not His Son, Jesus... and yes, Jesus did not lie either... however, if you will imply that the Father and Jesus are the same entity, that is another story...

Originally posted by Thundar
God in his omnipotence - has already defined himself to be Truth and not to be liar, so that makes it only impossible for us to label him as a liar, but that does not make it impossible for him to lie.

* then you are not rightly dividing the word of truth, my friend... because you are directly contradicting and opposing what Saint Paul had written in Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18, i.e. God cannot lie, it is impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
Or looking at it from a broader perspective, lying is just another form of sin, and God has already defined himself to be sinless. Therefore, it is only impossible for us to define him as a sinner. So God does indeed know what sin is and how to sin, since well..he defined what it is. And being that he defined what it is, it is quite possible for him to act in the way in which he defined sin to be. But he won't -- or as God himself puts it...

* with that kind of statement, my argument really fits in... it is impossible for God to commit a sin... so it is really impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So the implication given is not that God can't change himself and commit this thing he defines as sin, but rather, in the perfection of his Love and grace as well as with his omnipotence, he chooses not to change, and will always stick adhere to Truth as he has defined it.

* Amen... however, my argument still stands... it is impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
This is a bit off-topic, but I felt it necessary to address it as perhaps I didn't word my post as well as I should have. As you have stated, God is not the Father of sin, however, in his perfection and Love he does allow it, knowing that his reign over it will allow the perfection of his Love to increase.

If God was indeed limited or incapable of doing anything, even sinning, then he would not be able to reign over sin. We know this to not be the case. I summarized this point in another thread quite well. I must admit, I was extremely confused on this topic myself and I got some clarity on it from Nellinator, and then prayed to God about it. Below is the original post regarding God's reign over sin.

* first of all, i believe that eventhough God cannot lie (and is impossible for Him), i don't think that He is "limited"... true, the Bible states that it is impossible for God to lie but He is still Almighty...

* and eventhough God is incapable of lying, that does not mean He cannot reign over sin... see how powerful my God is? He is incapable of lying but He can reign over sin...

Originally posted by Thundar
All this being stated, I truly am greatful that I have been allowed to worship and get to know a loving God with this gift he's given me called "life." After having posted on this forum to you and many others, I have full faith and confidence now that he is indeed a God who will never abuse the power he possesses, one whose power and knowledge is beyond the comprehension of this world full of sin, and one who as you so graciously quoted -- consists of Truth that "endureth to all generations", a Truth that cannot be overcome by the "Father of lies" or any of those who purposefully attempt to mock and misrepresent his Word.

* abusing power is not in God's vocabulary... why? because God is good, Psalms 100:5... 'nuff said... smile

peejayd
Originally posted by Thundar
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

* i believe we are talking about the Father and not His Son, Jesus... and yes, Jesus did not lie either... however, if you will imply that the Father and Jesus are the same entity, that is another story...

Originally posted by Thundar
God in his omnipotence - has already defined himself to be Truth and not to be liar, so that makes it only impossible for us to label him as a liar, but that does not make it impossible for him to lie.

* then you are not rightly dividing the word of truth, my friend... because you are directly contradicting and opposing what Saint Paul had written in Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18, i.e. God cannot lie, it is impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
Or looking at it from a broader perspective, lying is just another form of sin, and God has already defined himself to be sinless. Therefore, it is only impossible for us to define him as a sinner. So God does indeed know what sin is and how to sin, since well..he defined what it is. And being that he defined what it is, it is quite possible for him to act in the way in which he defined sin to be. But he won't -- or as God himself puts it...

* with that kind of statement, my argument really fits in... it is impossible for God to commit a sin... so it is really impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So the implication given is not that God can't change himself and commit this thing he defines as sin, but rather, in the perfection of his Love and grace as well as with his omnipotence, he chooses not to change, and will always stick adhere to Truth as he has defined it.

* Amen... however, my argument still stands... it is impossible for God to lie...

Originally posted by Thundar
This is a bit off-topic, but I felt it necessary to address it as perhaps I didn't word my post as well as I should have. As you have stated, God is not the Father of sin, however, in his perfection and Love he does allow it, knowing that his reign over it will allow the perfection of his Love to increase.

If God was indeed limited or incapable of doing anything, even sinning, then he would not be able to reign over sin. We know this to not be the case. I summarized this point in another thread quite well. I must admit, I was extremely confused on this topic myself and I got some clarity on it from Nellinator, and then prayed to God about it. Below is the original post regarding God's reign over sin.

* first of all, i believe that eventhough God cannot lie (and is impossible for Him), i don't think that He is "limited"... true, the Bible states that it is impossible for God to lie but He is still Almighty...

* and eventhough God is incapable of lying, that does not mean He cannot reign over sin... see how powerful my God is? He is incapable of lying but He can reign over sin...

Originally posted by Thundar
All this being stated, I truly am greatful that I have been allowed to worship and get to know a loving God with this gift he's given me called "life." After having posted on this forum to you and many others, I have full faith and confidence now that he is indeed a God who will never abuse the power he possesses, one whose power and knowledge is beyond the comprehension of this world full of sin, and one who as you so graciously quoted -- consists of Truth that "endureth to all generations", a Truth that cannot be overcome by the "Father of lies" or any of those who purposefully attempt to mock and misrepresent his Word.

* abusing power is not in God's vocabulary... why? because God is good, Psalms 100:5... 'nuff said... smile

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.