Moderator: Moderators
So, where do you stand as to whether it is present, future, or has both a present and a future aspect?Luke 16:
6 The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is being zealously urged into it.
What can I say?!marco wrote:Nor is he the Boss. As soon as we venture into "God is...." we err.Checkpoint wrote:
God is not "deprived"by language or words of mere humans who happen to live in our modern environment with its values.
Neither is He unemployed or employed.
He's the Boss!
We have made God into what we imagine, even endowing him with love for his clay artefacts. How sweet is that! And Jesus, who knew no more of God than we do, suggested God has prepared a nice place for us, beyond man's dreams, because he "loves us." In his primitive way Jesus saw God as an enlarged being with a big heart, a dad in fact. We define God and we lose him.
Many of your posts "make statements about God".marco wrote:
When we use "quod erat demonstrandum" we are declaring we have done what we needed to show. I have no idea in what way the words apply, either to anything I have said or to what you set out to show.
My point is that when we make statements about God we are defining him imaginatively. I see no great achievement in this commonplace statement.
We are discussing what to me is a fictional character and my statements are like those about Hamlet. On the other hand, people who believe in Yahweh make statements about an infinite being based on their intuitive ideas of what this being should be doing. By defining, they are contradicting.Checkpoint wrote:
Many of your posts "make statements about God".
So if you make a "God is.." statement do you err? Or are you not included in the "we" that err?marco wrote: As soon as we venture into "God is...." we err.
Oh..On the other hand, people who believe in Yahweh make statements about an infinite being based on their intuitive ideas of what this being should be doing. By defining, they are contradicting.
The "we" are are those who believe in an immortal, omnipotent deity. By attributing passions to him, such as love or anger, they reduce or restrict and inevitably their little adjectives aimed at the Almighty are just man's foolish attempts to span the infinite or build a tower to reach him.JehovahsWitness wrote:So if you make a "God is.." statement do you err? Or are you not included in the "we" that err?marco wrote: As soon as we venture into "God is...." we err.
Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 582 by marco]
Oh..On the other hand, people who believe in Yahweh make statements about an infinite being based on their intuitive ideas of what this being should be doing. By defining, they are contradicting.
How are they contradicting?
Who or what are they contradicting?
What about the first cause god you accept exists?marco wrote:Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 582 by marco]
Oh..On the other hand, people who believe in Yahweh make statements about an infinite being based on their intuitive ideas of what this being should be doing. By defining, they are contradicting.
How are they contradicting?
Who or what are they contradicting?
To "define" is to place in limits. The God they uphold has no limits but man attempts to reduce him to human size, making him angry or loving or sad, as if God suffered from human frailties.
In current English, "we" usually includes the speaker. How is it a "we" when it excludes you as an atheist?marco wrote:The "we" are are those who believe in an immortal, omnipotent deity. .JehovahsWitness wrote:So if you make a "God is.." statement do you err? Or are you not included in the "we" that err?marco wrote: As soon as we venture into "God is...." we err.
