| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"CharliePF1" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2004 10:27:35 AM |
| Object: |
Re: 22/1 WHO is God? |
"Eliyahu" <EliyahuSilver@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Who is the God...
Who knows? As long as this God refuses to show or manifest himself,
he'll remain in the realm of myth and fantasy.
.
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? |
22 Jan 2004 11:26:54 AM |
|
|
"CharliePF1" <CharliePF1@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:XRSPb.1083$6O4.26170@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Eliyahu" <EliyahuSilver@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Who is the God...
Who knows? As long as this God refuses to show or manifest himself,
he'll remain in the realm of myth and fantasy.
God will reveal Himself to you soon enough, Mr. big shot.
Soon enough, but too late.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "CharliePF1" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? |
22 Jan 2004 07:02:24 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
"CharliePF1" <CharliePF1@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
"Eliyahu" <EliyahuSilver@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Who is the God...
Who knows? As long as this God refuses to show or manifest himself,
he'll remain in the realm of myth and fantasy.
God will reveal Himself to you soon enough, Mr. big shot.
Soon enough, but too late.
Nah, it's never too late to turn back to God. There you go again
with that negative thinking...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? -- "God of Spinoza" |
22 Jan 2004 08:46:12 PM |
|
|
CharliePF1 wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
"CharliePF1" <CharliePF1@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
"Eliyahu" <EliyahuSilver@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Who is the God...
Who knows? As long as this God refuses to show or manifest himself,
he'll remain in the realm of myth and fantasy.
God will reveal Himself to you soon enough, Mr. big shot.
Soon enough, but too late.
Nah, it's never too late to turn back to God.
===>You are already a PART of the COSMOS,
the "God of Spinoza".
You can neither "turn away", nor "turn back".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
22 Jan 2004 01:10:56 PM |
|
|
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
.
|
|
|
| User: "skeetor" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
27 Jan 2004 06:45:14 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater than all his
works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
24 Feb 2004 12:42:17 AM |
|
|
"skeetor" <skeetor@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TMtRb.49283$lh3.20751@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<snip>
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
A necessary being can have no potentiality with regard to existence. Its
existence is (1) pure actuality. Further, a necessary being must be (2)
immutable [unchanging]; obviously, for change to exist, there must be the
potentiality for change. However, a purely actual existence has no
potentiality with regard to its actuality. Therefore, a necessary being must
be unchanging. Notably, the attribute of (3) timelessness logically follows
from immutability because if there is no change, then there is no time.
Also, such a being must be (4) infinite [unlimited]. Only that which has
potentiality can be limited. But pure actuality does not have any potential;
so necessary existence is not limited, but unlimited. Furthermore, where
there is multiplicity, there is also limitation and potentiality. But since
a necessary being involves none of the latter, there can be no multiplicity
in its being; it must be completely (5) one. Lastly, necessary existence
must be (6) uncaused. Caused beings are moved from potentiality to actuality
and, therefore, change. But there is no change in an unchanging being.
Hence, a necessary being is uncaused... and this finite description is as
good a definition of who and what God is on a grand-scale vision (because He
is infinitely more, when you delve into His character and etc).
In sum, God is:
(1) pure actuality
(2) immutable [unchanging]
(3) timeless [unbound by time]
(4) infinite [unlimited]
(5) one [without multiplicity]
(6) uncaused
Any further comments... i'm sure i'll hear about them. ;)
FFC.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 22/01/2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
27 Jan 2004 03:28:38 PM |
|
|
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater than all his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
Try again. ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skeetor" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
27 Jan 2004 11:25:10 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4016D806.A54BDA5B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater than all
his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
bible verses i congealed.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to it.
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
you forgot "he is all in all." he is everything and everything
that makes up everything. exmaple: God is the chair, he is
the wood that makes up the chair, he is the cells that make
up the wood, the chemicles that make up the cells, the
molecules that make up the chemicles, the atoms that make
up the molecules, ad infinum... he also exists outside of that
which has dimension, or is quantifiable, a reality which has no
width or height or depth or time.
can you imagine a reality with no quantifiable physical dimensions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
29 Jan 2004 10:45:36 AM |
|
|
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4016D806.A54BDA5B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater than all
his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
bible verses i congealed.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to it.
===>You obviously don't comprehend the word "TOTALITY".
That means EVERYTHING!
ALL that ever was, is, and will be!
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
you forgot "he is all in all." he is everything and everything
that makes up everything. exmaple: God is the chair, he is
the wood that makes up the chair, he is the cells that make
up the wood, the chemicles that make up the cells, the
molecules that make up the chemicles, the atoms that make
up the molecules, ad infinum... he also exists outside of that
which has dimension, or is quantifiable, a reality which has no
width or height or depth or time.
===>That means a "reality" that does not exist, except in your
imagination.
can you imagine a reality with no quantifiable physical dimensions?
===>Imagine, yes. Believe in the existence of such, no.-- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skeetor" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
29 Jan 2004 08:48:37 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401938B0.836A2E30@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4016D806.A54BDA5B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater than
all
his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
bible verses i congealed.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to it.
===>You obviously don't comprehend the word "TOTALITY".
That means EVERYTHING!
ALL that ever was, is, and will be!
you wanna play word games, fine you win. but if there's something you don't
understand (which I doubt) about what I offered then I will explain it.
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
you forgot "he is all in all." he is everything and everything
that makes up everything. exmaple: God is the chair, he is
the wood that makes up the chair, he is the cells that make
up the wood, the chemicles that make up the cells, the
molecules that make up the chemicles, the atoms that make
up the molecules, ad infinum... he also exists outside of that
which has dimension, or is quantifiable, a reality which has no
width or height or depth or time.
===>That means a "reality" that does not exist, except in your
imagination.
it exists in theory.
can you imagine a reality with no quantifiable physical dimensions?
===>Imagine, yes. Believe in the existence of such, no.-- L.
well there you go, its all a matter of belief then isn't it. I believe, and
you don't . Why did you ask for a definition then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
30 Jan 2004 10:14:25 AM |
|
|
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401938B0.836A2E30@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4016D806.A54BDA5B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater than
all
his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
bible verses i congealed.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to it.
===>You obviously don't comprehend the word "TOTALITY".
That means EVERYTHING!
ALL that ever was, is, and will be!
you wanna play word games, fine you win.
===>No "word games".
ALL means ALL. If you cannot accept that, it is your problem, not mine.
but if there's something you don't
understand (which I doubt) about what I offered then I will explain it.
===>Explain it, if you can.
Perhaps I did not understand what you meant.
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
you forgot "he is all in all." he is everything and everything
that makes up everything. exmaple: God is the chair, he is
the wood that makes up the chair, he is the cells that make
up the wood, the chemicles that make up the cells, the
molecules that make up the chemicles, the atoms that make
up the molecules, ad infinum... he also exists outside of that
which has dimension, or is quantifiable, a reality which has no
width or height or depth or time.
===>That means a "reality" that does not exist, except in your
imagination.
it exists in theory.
===>WHOSE "theory"?
How do you VERIFY such a "theory"???
How does that "theory" fit the data?
Do you know what a "theory" is?
can you imagine a reality with no quantifiable physical dimensions?
===>Imagine, yes. Believe in the existence of such, no.-- L.
well there you go, its all a matter of belief then isn't it. I believe, and
you don't . Why did you ask for a definition then?
===>Because, as usual, I wanted to know WHAT it is you believe in.
But if you can't define it, fine. Most people can't. They just "believe"
because someone sold them on the idea. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skeetor" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
30 Jan 2004 03:33:31 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401A82E1.452941A6@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401938B0.836A2E30@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4016D806.A54BDA5B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater
than
all
his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
bible verses i congealed.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to it.
===>You obviously don't comprehend the word "TOTALITY".
That means EVERYTHING!
ALL that ever was, is, and will be!
you wanna play word games, fine you win.
===>No "word games".
ALL means ALL. If you cannot accept that, it is your problem, not mine.
i can accept it. Since God (also) resides in a realm that has no time or
space, and yet is able to interact with this realm, which is actually a part
of him, he exists equally in our farthest future as well as our most distant
past. he sees them equally, there is no "only now" for God. i could go on
for days.
but if there's something you don't
understand (which I doubt) about what I offered then I will explain it.
===>Explain it, if you can.
Perhaps I did not understand what you meant.
did you not agree with the definition i provided then.?
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
you forgot "he is all in all." he is everything and everything
that makes up everything. exmaple: God is the chair, he is
the wood that makes up the chair, he is the cells that make
up the wood, the chemicles that make up the cells, the
molecules that make up the chemicles, the atoms that make
up the molecules, ad infinum... he also exists outside of that
which has dimension, or is quantifiable, a reality which has no
width or height or depth or time.
===>That means a "reality" that does not exist, except in your
imagination.
it exists in theory.
===>WHOSE "theory"?
I think just mine, maybe more but i have no proof.
How do you VERIFY such a "theory"???
i have read most of the bible, it has several descriptions of the attributes
of God.
How does that "theory" fit the data?
as best i can make it.
Do you know what a "theory" is?
pretty sure. its an assumption based on limited knowledge; a conjecture
can you imagine a reality with no quantifiable physical dimensions?
===>Imagine, yes. Believe in the existence of such, no.-- L.
well there you go, its all a matter of belief then isn't it. I believe,
and
you don't . Why did you ask for a definition then?
===>Because, as usual, I wanted to know WHAT it is you believe in.
But if you can't define it, fine. Most people can't. They just "believe"
because someone sold them on the idea. -- L.
well then I told you what i believed in and you said "there is no need...".
my only option then was to assume that the topic had changed from "defining
god" to "persuading me there is no need."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
30 Jan 2004 05:55:51 PM |
|
|
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401A82E1.452941A6@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401938B0.836A2E30@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4016D806.A54BDA5B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message
news:899009c447b66cc651df1f5752faa116@news.teranews.com...
===>According to the great philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
Albert Einstein said he believes in "the God of Spinoza".
CHALLENGE:
Can you come up with a better definition???
Libertarius
God is the creator of all, he is all in all, yet he is greater
than
all
his
works.
===>ILLOGICAL.
Your assertion makes no sense.
bible verses i congealed.
First of all, there is no need to postulate a "creator" of
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE, which would, by definition,
INCLUDE anything you might call by the name of "God".
your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to it.
===>You obviously don't comprehend the word "TOTALITY".
That means EVERYTHING!
ALL that ever was, is, and will be!
you wanna play word games, fine you win.
===>No "word games".
ALL means ALL. If you cannot accept that, it is your problem, not mine.
i can accept it. Since God (also) resides in a realm that has no time or
space, and yet is able to interact with this realm,
===>Such a "realm" (though it appears to exist only in your imagination),
would STILL BE a part of the TOTALITY!
which is actually a part
of him, he exists equally in our farthest future as well as our most distant
past. he sees them equally, there is no "only now" for God. i could go on
for days.
===>Thus multiplying terms describing only your imagination.
Imagine someone writing those same words about Buddha, or
Krishna or Allah or Chemosh or Baal or Jupiter/Zeus.
Would you find them meaningful?
but if there's something you don't
understand (which I doubt) about what I offered then I will explain it.
===>Explain it, if you can.
Perhaps I did not understand what you meant.
did you not agree with the definition i provided then.?
===>What definition?
I have not seen any.
However, secondly, even if your "God" was,
as you claim, "greater than all his works",
there would STILL be something greater,
i.e. the SUM TOTAL of your "God" PLUS "his works"
you forgot "he is all in all." he is everything and everything
that makes up everything. exmaple: God is the chair, he is
the wood that makes up the chair, he is the cells that make
up the wood, the chemicles that make up the cells, the
molecules that make up the chemicles, the atoms that make
up the molecules, ad infinum... he also exists outside of that
which has dimension, or is quantifiable, a reality which has no
width or height or depth or time.
===>That means a "reality" that does not exist, except in your
imagination.
it exists in theory.
===>WHOSE "theory"?
I think just mine, maybe more but i have no proof.
How do you VERIFY such a "theory"???
i have read most of the bible, it has several descriptions of the attributes
of God.
===>It has MANY descriptions of SEVERAL "Gods" imagined by the
authors of the books compiled in the Bible.
But that is totally insufficient for verifying a "theory".
How does that "theory" fit the data?
as best i can make it.
===>Can you list the data it fits?
Do you know what a "theory" is?
pretty sure. its an assumption based on limited knowledge; a conjecture
===>WRONG!
A "theory" is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another,
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles
offered to explain how a number of phenomena can be working
together in terms of cause-effect relationships. E.g. the Newtonian
and Einsteinian theories of gravity, the Darwinian and other theories of
evolution,. the wave theory of light, etc.
My challenge was to see if anyone can come up with a definition that is more
encompassing and more provable than the definition of the Pantheists.
According to the great Pantheist philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
The CHALLENGE: was:
Can you come up with a better definition???-- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skeetor" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? NOT A "WHO" -- CHALLENGE |
01 Feb 2004 06:20:56 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401AEF07.67B190E@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
skeetor wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:401A82E1.452941A6@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Do you know what a "theory" is?
pretty sure. its an assumption based on limited knowledge; a conjecture
===>WRONG!
A "theory" is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one
another,
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
principles
paraphrase'd exactly.
offered to explain how a number of phenomena can be working
together in terms of cause-effect relationships. E.g. the Newtonian
and Einsteinian theories of gravity, the Darwinian and other theories of
evolution,. the wave theory of light, etc.
inflated definition, more colorful words, but it meens the same.
My challenge was to see if anyone can come up with a definition that is
more
encompassing and more provable than the definition of the Pantheists.
According to the great Pantheist philosopher Spinoza, "GOD"
is NOT a "WHO", but the ESSENCE OF BEING, NATURE,
the TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE.
The CHALLENGE: was:
Can you come up with a better definition???-- L.
I thought "all in all" would encompass "totality" sorry. i just added
more.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? |
22 Jan 2004 11:37:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:27:35 GMT, "CharliePF1"
<CharliePF1@Ihatespam.com> spake thusly:
"Eliyahu" <EliyahuSilver@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Who is the God...
Who knows? As long as this God refuses to show or manifest himself,
he'll remain in the realm of myth and fantasy.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:20
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 22/1 WHO is God? |
22 Jan 2004 03:17:23 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:27:35 GMT, "CharliePF1"
<CharliePF1@Ihatespam.com> spake thusly:
"Eliyahu" <EliyahuSilver@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Who is the God...
Who knows? As long as this God refuses to show or manifest himself,
he'll remain in the realm of myth and fantasy.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:20
===>The author (Saul/Paul) is simply speaking for himself.
He cannot imagine the existence of the Eternal Cosmic Totality
without some humanoid "creator" in the sky ("third heaven"???)
Of course his disabilities need not be acquired by everyone.
Albert Einstein did not suffer from the disabilities of Saul/Paul,
so, he declared he believed in "the God of Spinoza", i.e.
NATURE, THE COSMOS.
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: 22/1 WHO is God? -- JEHOVAH, GOD OF TYRANTS?
the loving, caring, mass-murdering christian god, busy as usual - 221
How to not count out someone who God has counted in
The word Gentile used to mean pagan, ignorant, heathen, who don't know God --- correct???
The God Who Is
Who Doesn't Believe In God?
The God Who Loves
Re: Who created god / God ??
| Who is God?
Was "Re: Who has the right God?"
No one who seeks after God?
Re: Who Made God?
WHO IS THE REAL GOD?
God divided humanity by the sons of Noah, blessed Japhetic People to dwell in His Kingdom, and appointed me as the Prime Minister thereof to free it from violence and the violent who take it by force, to cast all what offend and all who do iniquity o
who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Joh. 1:13
|
|
|
