does god exist?

[Rex]

So god is love because god says he is love? Alright then...I am a millionaire because I say I am a millionaire...crap, it's not working.

Do you really find contentment in circular reasoning?

I think you are missing the point here. He is GOD and you are not. Thus he can call himself anything he wants and you can't.

Thus being circular for mortal you but not GOD.

Try to put yourself in others shoes and reason from both sides.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Good point Rex, but the problem here is this: Linus is not God. Neither are the writers of the Bible. So the argument comes down to "God is love because some people say God says God is love".

 

[Rex]

Good point Rex, but the problem here is this: Linus is not God. Neither are the writers of the Bible. So the argument comes down to "God is love because some people say God says God is love".

But the Bible was inspired by God, or the God wispered the words into them to write down. Of course that is debateable too.

But even if you don't believe that God would be all everthing. All good, All loving, All knowing, All powerful, etc etc. it comes with the turf. hehe

 

[Allan]

I have experienced God's Love powerfully and it cannot be described but the definition can be done.

The nature that was experienced was gentle and it was kind and it did not respond in any human way to be self protective. The gentle aspect is beyond the most gentle a human could ever be. A certain hardness is broadcast out of the inner being of a human. The new nature that God will broadcast powerfully through is unable to dominate to get its own way, or even try to. A receptive person, one who is in preparation or a congregation, can recieve this energy inwardly in a totally energizing experience.

God exists in the purity of a new nature with another mind.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Rex--

But the Bible was inspired by God, or the God wispered the words into them to write down. Of course that is debateable too.

Yes, but who said the Bible was inspired by God? God didn't say it in a loud booming voice...people said it. In truth, when the religiously inclined defend their beliefs by saying "it might not make sense, but I have faith in God" they are really saying "it might not make sense, but I have faith in humans who say they were inspired by God".

 

[scratch]

Allen I have often experianced very spritual moments when your feeling happy about pretty much everything, infact last night sitting on my couch watching t.v i was feeling it. Some people would think that's god touching them in some grand way. Personally i was just happy about where i am in life, those were indorfons and all those other happy hormones running to my head making me feel that way. As for he/she being god, yes he/she is god we are not but why must he/she be right and why can he/she call her/himself whay every he/she wants.

Does god answer to a higher god does he/she say ever question His/her own creation? Is there a book of god, bible which god must follow. Does god ever question his/her own rules and regulations?

 

[Allan]

infact last night sitting on my couch watching t.v i was feeling it. Some people would think that's god touching them in some grand way. Personally i was just happy about where i am in life, those were indorfons and all those other happy hormones running to my head making me feel that way.
Does god answer to a higher god does he/she say ever question His/her own creation? Is there a book of god, bible which god must follow. Does god ever question his/her own rules and regulations?

It is human to be comfortable, it is normal. A human will do everything to get the happy feelings but some get them when they murder and rape.
Your couch could become sad for you and happy for someone else.
The only reason your happy is because of a police force, a lock on your door and a full stomach.

There is a completely different dimension involved. The discussion is "does God exist" and then I reply "yes" and you should reply "no".

You are asking questions that you don't want any answer to. You would question the authority of where the answers came from.

I can tell you exactly where God is, go there, then you will have your answer. You will not need the input from any other person on this planet.
You will have to give up all your own life with the happy feelings, and human bonding.
If you can do it then when you talk to people about where God is they will not understand you because it is too simple, but it does require some effort.
You would then know the end that is coming to all the unrepentant.

You will know this because you will know human nature from another perspective instead of from your couch and the happy feelings.

 

[scratch]

The police force do not keep me happy. A full stomuch and a locked door is alright. But happiness comes from a feeling of well being, a perception that's what happeness is if you percieve life to be good it is, bad it is bad.

As for asking questions, I do want the answers, when you answer me your answers are vague and circular they just come back to the question I was asking in the first place. It just seems like most religions are a mass of opinion. People seem to just follow it without asking questions. Then when they do they alot of them seem to lose the faith.

 

[Allan]

The police force do not keep me happy. A full stomuch and a locked door is alright. But happiness comes from a feeling of well being, a perception that's what happeness is if you percieve life to be good it is, bad it is bad.

As for asking questions, I do want the answers, when you answer me your answers are vague and circular they just come back to the question I was asking in the first place. It just seems like most religions are a mass of opinion. People seem to just follow it without asking questions. Then when they do they alot of them seem to lose the faith.

I took a little liberty with my last post and had some regret.

When I started work as a teenager I was in a factory with between 50 and 70 men and the tea lady and two office ladies for 5 years at the same job. One physical fight I got into was with my immediate boss just because he reckoned I smiled too much and then he attacked me. He was a good catholic with plenty of his own chidren he couldn't control so he took me on.
My work was good and I enjoyed life but realized that most of the older tradesmen were a sour lot and I think they hated life and if you got in their way it took some skills to out wit them and leave them to it.
I decided then if that was life for the rest of my life it wasn't for me.

I developed enough skills to never have to seriously work in a factory situation again and have had plenty of time and a freedom not many people would have to explore alternatives in the real world.

I met a bloke years ago who said we were just play things of some alien force and he was very angry about it. He was very rational and a practical person and totally against and hated the mere thought of God.
It is way beyond me and I don't need to question to deeply.

I only know what I do from comparing against personal supernatural experience and am usually careful not to put a gender on God because to me there is no gender but Father is a term that means to me the author or originator.
In that sense there is no other above God the Father.
If you can imagine no time, no movement, infinite, ever lasting, always the same then to me that is where God is and can only be experienced as an energizing spirit.
This always seems a complete knowledge but then it never is. I just treat the experience as enlightening and continuing.

You are really thrashing it a bit with some of your questions. It sounds as though you need answers, rather than wanting them.

 

[true blood]

In a court of law, the primary witness is always the one who was an eyewitness to a specific occurrence. Everyone else's statement is secondary to the eyewitness. So a man today saying that he doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is no judge at all, as he is refuting the numerous eyewitnesses. Yet many critics or skeptics of a God and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ decide thousands of years after the events that it did not occur. It seems to me that the men who were there as primary witnesses should be better able to speak authoritatively. You cannot say that men like Mosus, Peter and Paul were stupid. You cannot say that all those who went down to see the empty tomb where Jesus had been buried were hoodwinked. They were no more mistaken that you would be had you witnessed a cataclysmic occurrence in your community, and a hundred years later somebody writing about the occurrence claimed it never happened. Nobody can prove that Abe Lincoln or George Washington lived.

 

[Ceridwen018]

We have no evidence that the bible is a book of eyewitness accounts, as opposed to a book of stories.

Greek mythology presents many eyewitness accounts of Zeus and the gang...do you believe it?

 

[true blood]

We have no evidence that the bible is a book of eyewitness accounts, as opposed to a book of stories.

Greek mythology presents many eyewitness accounts of Zeus and the gang...do you believe it?

I've read the bible. Through-out the pages there are many eyewitness accounts. Its been awhile since I've read Greek mythology but I did in high school. I can't recall any of the authors claiming to be present or eyewitness. Perhaps you can refresh my mind. I'm not an expert of law but I'm willing to bet that if 100 people reported that they seen you steel an item and bared witness in a court of law against you, you would be found guilty regardless of hard evidence of lack of.

 

[scratch]

WE have evedience that george washington and abe existed, dig up there bones.

Personally i don't care about any american presidients or anything like that.

Yes i am looking for answers, I know there answers i'll probably never find. It would be nice if it we did but personally i think that's what being human i all about asking questions to answers we'll never know. Believing in something we'll never see. Almost a year ago i was struck with a disease which brought me within a few hours of death, then i thought i must feel some sort of spirtual elightenment. Nothing, nadda zip. All i walked away with was an increased fear of sickness and paranoia. If stuff like that happens and doesn't in anyway make you feel closer with some supernatural force then how can that force exist?

As for that argument true blood, one could easily say that those people who saw the robbery were bribed to testitifie against that person found guilty. In that, could the people who witnessed all this stuff in the bible has had things distorted and misinterpreted, or even bribed by governments wanting to control people.

 

[true blood]

WE have evedience that george washington and abe existed, dig up there bones.

Personally i don't care about any american presidients or anything like that.

Yes i am looking for answers, I know there answers i'll probably never find. It would be nice if it we did but personally i think that's what being human i all about asking questions to answers we'll never know. Believing in something we'll never see. Almost a year ago i was struck with a disease which brought me within a few hours of death, then i thought i must feel some sort of spirtual elightenment. Nothing, nadda zip. All i walked away with was an increased fear of sickness and paranoia. If stuff like that happens and doesn't in anyway make you feel closer with some supernatural force then how can that force exist?

As for that argument true blood, one could easily say that those people who saw the robbery were bribed to testitifie against that person found guilty. In that, could the people who witnessed all this stuff in the bible has had things distorted and misinterpreted, or even bribed by governments wanting to control people.

What will digging up the bones of a grave site prove? I'm not an expert but wouldn't you need something to compare the dna to, or something? And no, if 100 people testified against you in a court of law I doubt a judge or jury would accept an argument that those witnesses were all bribed unless there was proof or other witnesses that could testify to that arguement.

 

[Ceridwen018]

And no, if 100 people testified against you in a court of law I doubt a judge or jury would accept an argument that those witnesses were all bribed unless there was proof or other witnesses that could testify to that arguement.

True Blood, I agree with this. The difference between 100 modern witnesses and people in the bible, however, has to do with what we can personally witness ourselves, if that makes sense. We can witness the testimony as coming straight from the horse's mouth in 100 modern witnesses, but with the bible, we have to assume that the stories are actual eye-witness accounts that haven't been altered or forged in any way.

Greek Mythology has tons of 'witnesses'. I'm in the process of finding some good internet sites for you, but if you've read that stuff before, you know there are numerous times when the gods supposedly come into contact with humans. Some of the stories about the gods are even written by the people themselves, such as the story of Aphrodite and the shepherd boy.

 

[Pah]

In a court of law, the primary witness is always the one who was an eyewitness to a specific occurrence. Everyone else's statement is secondary to the eyewitness. So a man today saying that he doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is no judge at all, as he is refuting the numerous eyewitnesses. Yet many critics or skeptics of a God and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ decide thousands of years after the events that it did not occur. It seems to me that the men who were there as primary witnesses should be better able to speak authoritatively. You cannot say that men like Mosus, Peter and Paul were stupid. You cannot say that all those who went down to see the empty tomb where Jesus had been buried were hoodwinked. They were no more mistaken that you would be had you witnessed a cataclysmic occurrence in your community, and a hundred years later somebody writing about the occurrence claimed it never happened. Nobody can prove that Abe Lincoln or George Washington lived.

The fact is there is only one indication of any of the New Testament writers being an eye witness. But even here, the account was written decades after the supposed events. It is even doubtful that the name on the gospel is actually the author.

Even if you can reconcile the different accounts of who went when to the empty tomb, the asumption that they were not "hoodwinked" is not proof of a resurection. All they can testify to is an empty tomb.

Yes, we can prove those presidents lived and preformed the duties of the prresidency.Your statement is in error. But even if true, it provides no proof that Christ lived There is no proof of the life of Christ..

-pah-

 

[Allan]

With out any input from religion I had an experience of God.
God didn't talk to me with words. It was as though thoughts were coming into me out of another mind. They were complete revelations of a few seconds but would have taken perhaps an hour to articulate. I knew where they were coming from that witness was inside my mind. I was energized when these thoughts came.

I burnt all my original notes years ago and it takes a certain determination to connect with the different mind and I am able to do it but It probably wouldn't mean much to any one else unless they had some preparation. This is of course where the uninitiated may have a little fear about working in the area of the mind.

I investigated mind and realized human nature has a mind and God will communicate through another mind. The Mind of Christ.

Because it is in the mind no help to understanding or there being a witness for others is going to be immediately apparent.

All human endeavour is instigated from mind. A person thinking out of another mind should be producing something different.

When more people have the same experience I had and continue to have the response amongst them will be a witness because it will be obvious. It will be different to what Christianity presents and what is seen at the moment.

I am one living witness that God exists and that God is. What I do and what I am is not apparent because this world is unable to recieve what I have.

 

[scratch]

u heard voices in your head, that's your proof of god and religion? I'ld be frightnened if i heard revelations and voices in my head.

 

[true blood]

The fact is there is only one indication of any of the New Testament writers being an eye witness. But even here, the account was written decades after the supposed events. It is even doubtful that the name on the gospel is actually the author.

Even if you can reconcile the different accounts of who went when to the empty tomb, the asumption that they were not "hoodwinked" is not proof of a resurection. All they can testify to is an empty tomb.

Yes, we can prove those presidents lived and preformed the duties of the prresidency.Your statement is in error. But even if true, it provides no proof that Christ lived There is no proof of the life of Christ..

-pah-

You admit that there is an indication of a New Testament writer being an eye witness (Magdalene) but you forget about the Old Testament writers. Not only seeing the empty tomb but many, over 500, seen Christ in his resurrected body after he was risen from the dead. Nobody can prove those presidents lived. Nobody can prove what Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Caesar, Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus's and all their writings existed. Yet the world accepts their writings, teaching it in schools. There are no original manuscripts to any of those history writers and the earliest first copies were written over 1000 years after the originals. In contrast, NT Biblical Manuscripts and the time frames from the orginals to the earliest copies do not even exceed 400 years.

 

[Pah]

You admit that there is an indication of a New Testament writer being an eye witness (Magdalene)

Since Magdalene didn't write a gospel, her account is, at best, hearsay and not of an eyewitness. At worst she was not even there. If three accounts (or was it four?) can not agree who was there when,.there is a likelyhood that all are wrong. No, the eyewitness indicated is the author of Luke (I believe without referencing my bookmarks or was it John?). But the Gospel of Luke follows the Markian author so closely, correcting grammitcal error, and so long after the gospel of mark, there exists doubt about its authenticity. (so also with Matthew).

..[qiote] ... but you forget about the Old Testament writers. Not only seeing the empty tomb but many, over 500, seen Christ in his resurrected body after he was risen from the dead. Nobody can prove those presidents lived.[/quote]

You should probably forget about the Old Testement writers confirming the risen Lord.too!

But if you meant the New Testament then only the writers of the gospels applies. Paul did not see a phyisical body but described a vision. And since the gospels were "ghost written (not Holy Ghost) there is no eye witness accounts there.

Now as to your assertion there were 500 witnesses. I'm not aware of the number - perhaps you can provide chapter and verse to account for that figure. But again, a story about other people seeing a risen Lord is not primary evidence - it is hearsay.

Nobody can prove what Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Caesar, Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus's and all their writings existed. Yet the world accepts their writings, teaching it in schools. There are no original manuscripts to any of those history writers and the earliest first copies were written over 1000 years after the originals. In contrast, NT Biblical Manuscripts and the time frames from the orginals to the earliest copies do not even exceed 400 years.

I'll use the example in your previous post where you denied proof ot the existence of G. Washington and A. Lincoln. Since these men were presidents and history has been so keen on saving them, official papers were signed by these gentlemen. Contempory history ( not 30-60 years after their death) affirms the acts these gentlemen signed

What your assertion does, if accepted as fact, is disprove the notion that this is a nation founded in Christianity for there would be no proof of Christians taking part in the procedings. So, I'll tell ya what - if I give up proof of G. Washington's existence you must give up the "Christian nation". A deal? But I must tell you, I lose nothing for even if G Washington did not exist, that fact would not prove that Christ existed nor was the risen Lord.

By the way, for your edification, there are fragments of the gospels that exist (these numbers are from an unconfirmed memroy) fro about 60 years after the time of the story, whole Gospels exist from 200 years or so, and the codex's are about 300 hundred years. The age you gave is much too much.

-pah-