1 2 30 31 32 34 36 37 38 49 50
Topic: can you describe God without sounding delusional
no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:25 PM

funches...dude...i just checked out your post compilation. every single one of them is smug, hateful, belittling, and superior.

good luck with that.....frown


yes "esso"in which you were just engaging in the same type of behavior ...look "esso" just say you can't answer the original question ..there are answers to this question...but I guess you can't come up with them ..

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:26 PM

since noone has never made a claim of seeing God or meeting God that wasn't deem as being certifiable then isn't it logical that God is just a happenstance of fantasy or delusion, this fact can be further proved when a believer attempt to describe God

so can anyone describe God without the description sounding like that of delusion or the person making the description sounding irrational

if you can not describe God without sounding delusional and yet insist on worshipping something unseen and incomprehensible that you can't even describe ... sounds delusional to me


What kind of description do you want? What do you want me to describe?

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:30 PM

But then, why should a Supreme Diety also suffer such indignations?


that was accomphish with that whole Jesus on the cross incident ..it didn't have to happen but for the grace of God

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:33 PM

""..er..."Justme" ..if you didn't notice describing God is the topic of the thread .. geez you guys are scary""



let us pray.......

for funches.


praying works ..well unless you're an amputees

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:35 PM


since noone has never made a claim of seeing God or meeting God that wasn't deem as being certifiable then isn't it logical that God is just a happenstance of fantasy or delusion, this fact can be further proved when a believer attempt to describe God

so can anyone describe God without the description sounding like that of delusion or the person making the description sounding irrational

if you can not describe God without sounding delusional and yet insist on worshipping something unseen and incomprehensible that you can't even describe ... sounds delusional to me


What kind of description do you want? What do you want me to describe?


what do I want you to describe?....geez Spidercmb didn't you read the topic of the thread ...

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:42 PM

what do I want you to describe?....geez Spidercmb didn't you read the topic of the thread ...


You want a description of God. Okay, "love". there, that is one description. Do you want a full description of God's character? Do you want to know what God looks like? Do you want to know God's powers? What exactly do you want described? Maybe you should have thought out your topic a bit more before you posted. Also, who is the judge of what is "delusional"? It's a very subjective standard. What sounds delutional to you might sound rational to someone else.

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:52 PM


what do I want you to describe?....geez Spidercmb didn't you read the topic of the thread ...

You want a description of God. Okay, "love".


"love" is a contractional concept ..come on spidercmb even you know that sounds delusional

wouldee's photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:57 PM


But then, why should a Supreme Diety also suffer such indignations?


that was accomphish with that whole Jesus on the cross incident ..it didn't have to happen but for the grace of God





Funches,


Of course not. But it did happen.

And personification of a shared Supreme Diety over Israel may have been implied.

But Isaiah 53 leaves open credibility of a greater content in Jesus, than just that of a prophet of JHWH.

The face of the world stage of man's history changed on that day.

And we, as man, have succeeded in complicating the present reality in intellectually dishonest ways because of enlightened self interests. Quite apart from that day, 2000 years ago.

Avarice and greed know no bounds. It is a resilient quirk.


Nonetheless, the cross was not about this world becoming a theocracy. In that Jesus Christ is not culpable.

He taught that man should remain subjugated to the governments of man and render the heart of the individual to God or JHWH, if you will.

He taught that he had not come to destroy the world, but to overcome the world, while living in the world in the physical body as individuals.

He taught that Adam's shame was no longer an inescapable imposition, but rather that in Himself, that a new Adam was now presented and that inner awakening to this renewing of the heart and soul, by any man, was free, available and present to be received by any and all.

And yet, His message is alive yet obscured by falsehoods and deflection. Nevertheless, the message is intact and the free gift of God, JHWH, present and uncontaminated.


Redykeulous's photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:58 PM
If we are to communicate sufficiently as a species, the valid definitions of the words we use must be known and understood by all.

The word belief has a very specific definition and it must be so, or the word would loose all value in communication.

Those who believe, do so as an act of faith. In the scientific world the word ‘believe’ is often used, and theories that lead to new discoveries are often based on ‘belief’. In other words someone had faith that some previous information was correct and if it was to be validated it must be proven an accurate claim.

Much of what we have ‘learned’ and ‘believe’ to be accurate or known, is much of the science that is used to maintain our health, as in the medical field. No one denies that these beliefs have enough consistency to be considered ‘knowledge’. And as such they can be described, defined, and validated through many sources.

However, when one attempts to ‘describe’ a theory that has no visible or tangible evidence and no ‘viability’, other than faith, they are in fact projecting a thought pattern that can only be considered abstractly, often it means to forgo current ‘knowledge’, both requirements are , in fact, an invitation into the delusional.

Scientists are often willing and able to make such leaps, because their experience includes ‘knowledge’ that would not have been gained without a journey into the delusion. If such delusion had consistently failed to provide ‘knowledge’ than certainly there would be no reason to begin to theorize and there would be no advancement for society.

In the case of a belief in a god or goddess – there have been many theories as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of religions that have existed throughout time. Every one of these theories (delusions) has come up empty handed, unable to present visible and tangible evidence that is viable and repeatable, nor has such theory ever added a ‘known’ in which all people could partake.

For this reason when one attempts to ‘describe’ their god or goddess, they are not presenting description on the ‘known’ but rather description based on a personal theory, in which they ‘believe’.

All such attempts at describing a god or goddess, can only be viewed as delusional, for no matter how many make an attempt at such a description, no two will 'fully' represent the same perception, because the only thing to base the theory on, is individual perception.

The course of a discussion may ask for one’s ‘theory’ regarding the divinity of his faith, but once the theory has been set forth, I find it unwise of the believer to take part in a discussion of a competitive nature.

For there is no possible way to ‘win’ such a discussion, and (winning) is the nature of competition. If faith requires a ‘winner’ in competition in order to be believed by others, than it can only be perceived by non-believers that gods who would be in competition to win followers may not be the ultimate god of choice and must therefore be the product of a delusional mind.

This only makes people wonder why those of faith are so intent on making ‘their’ particular perception the one and only acceptable view, when clearly such a view, with no foundation of the ‘known’, is the delusion of the individual. Such delusions only make it to the realm of the ‘illusion’ of reality, when others choose to follow the same belief. But that does not make it any less of a delusion.

So continue this discourse if you wish, but it only serves to shed an obnoxiously bad light on those who 'believe'.

This is my 'compassionate' lesson of the day!

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 12:59 PM



what do I want you to describe?....geez Spidercmb didn't you read the topic of the thread ...

You want a description of God. Okay, "love".


"love" is a contractional concept ..come on spidercmb even you know that sounds delusional


What is a "contractional concept"?

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:08 PM

Funches,
Of course not. But it did happen.


it happen because God allowed it to happen ..in the scheme of time God knew eons in advance every event that would take place to lead to Jesus demise...but allowed it anyway because it was part of his divine plan...what good is faith and worship it the outcome is already etched

wouldee's photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:13 PM
Redy,

You are correct.

Not that there does not exist an universal belief, but that there exists no universal acceptance of that belief.

Given that, delusion is always a risk associated with faith.

And faith it is that is required for any belief.

Belief is the risked faithfulness to any pursuit.

wouldee's photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:15 PM


Funches,
Of course not. But it did happen.


it happen because God allowed it to happen ..in the scheme of time God knew eons in advance every event that would take place to lead to Jesus demise...but allowed it anyway because it was part of his divine plan...what good is faith and worship it the outcome is already etched





The outcome, my friend, is not apparent until one apprehends that it is viable and harmonious with one's own instincts.

esso's photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:18 PM
Edited by esso on Wed 12/05/07 01:20 PM


funches...dude...i just checked out your post compilation. every single one of them is smug, hateful, belittling, and superior.

good luck with that.....frown


yes "esso"in which you were just engaging in the same type of behavior ...look "esso" just say you can't answer the original question ..there are answers to this question...but I guess you can't come up with them ..


the difference between my "same type of behavior" and yours is that i don't deliberately set out to hurt people every single time i open my mouth. i don't ask a soul-defining question, then bytchslap people for their heartfelt and hard-won answers. i'm merely responding to your contempt in an effort to defend myself and others.

people have given 35 PAGES of answers to your question, but all you do is insult them. it's obvious you only asked it to vent your hostilities and patronize people; not learn anything. do you think you have the "correct" answer and are just waiting for someone to "guess" what it is? what will the lucky person who does get? your approval? spare me.

i WON'T answer this question. not from or to someone like you.

give YOUR answer, funches. you say there's an answer, so YOU must know what it is. please, o great one. please impart your wisdom to us ignorant and lowly plebians.


no photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:20 PM

Those who believe, do so as an act of faith. In the scientific world the word ‘believe’ is often used, and theories that lead to new discoveries are often based on ‘belief’. In other words someone had faith that some previous information was correct and if it was to be validated it must be proven an accurate claim.


but as in science a theory is not fact or is claim to be truth ..you can't claim faith as proof in science ...religion relies on one not wanting to know or one not wanting to move beyond the bounderies of the religion ..beliefs is all about the doubts or else it would be claimed as fact

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:21 PM




what do I want you to describe?....geez Spidercmb didn't you read the topic of the thread ...

You want a description of God. Okay, "love".


"love" is a contractional concept ..come on spidercmb even you know that sounds delusional


What is a "contractional concept"?


means it doesn't exist pass the mind

no photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:26 PM



Funches,
Of course not. But it did happen.


it happen because God allowed it to happen ..in the scheme of time God knew eons in advance every event that would take place to lead to Jesus demise...but allowed it anyway because it was part of his divine plan...what good is faith and worship it the outcome is already etched


The outcome, my friend, is not apparent until one apprehends that it is viable and harmonious with one's own instincts.


the outcome is the outcome and for the religious the outcome is already etched because it's believed by the faithful that whatever happenstances takes place in their lives that it's all part of the divine plan God has in store for them ..so if makes no difference if they pray or worship or whatever ..they cannot change their destiny

adj4u's photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:27 PM
ignored again


bigsmile bigsmile

creativesoul's photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:30 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Wed 12/05/07 01:31 PM
funches:

I wonder, and I believe that I am not alone here, how many of you are there?

Your verbage takes on a completely different style often, which indicates more than one author...:wink:

Who are you now?

kojack's photo
Wed 12/05/07 01:30 PM
A famous movie said it best. It is a Christmas Story and tries to prove Santa isn t real,

Anyway in the court a lil giril handsa lawyer a $1 bill.
The lawyer looks puzzled for a brief moment and then says....

"Your Honor if the USA Government can back up God in every currency it makes.....

IN God We Trust.

1 2 30 31 32 34 36 37 38 49 50