Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LLCF who wrote (27643)	10/14/2009 4:03:14 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

<The direct revelation that Christians acknowledge is the bible> "Yea, looked there... it seems god as person isn't described in there." Virtually every reference to God in the Bible refers to "Him" using personal terms or descriptions. Can you read? From Genesis 1: to Revelation 22: God is called "He" and described in personal terms doing things that only personal entities are capable of doing. <I gave you a clear definition of "Person" months ago.> "Yes, and it fits what I described as god (previous post) fine." I don't know what you are talking about. I don't think you do either. It's irrational to suggest that God's primary essence is both personal and impersonal. "You are the one that seems to think "personal" is really important as far as God goes... so one normally would explain himself if one is to assert something." I have explained myself clearly and repeatedly. Why is this important? "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Heb 11:6 "I don't care one way of the other." That's why you are not a Christian. "Again, since you can't describe "personal" or "impersonal" there is little to discuss." That's a lie and you know it! You are just playing the stunned one. "<<Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature. >>(From the website you linked)" "Hmmm, beyone speech for sure... so your assertion about no "force" being used seems empty. Seems to me that as long as there is information exchanged it would fit the Catholic definition of "personal", but you probably know better... we may never know." You are being incoherent. I never asserted any such thing. Impersonal forces are incapable of initiating language. That's also why I asked you how an impersonal force could intelligently design anything. You never answered. It's fairly obvious why: you don't know what you are talking about.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next