The Word of God

[Unveiled Artist]

There's an herb you can take to help your memory but I forget what it is.

Tried "it". I don't think they can find the piece of the brain they took out and threw in the trash. There's a lot of debate about it, though. God can't go against his own rules. Another is he choose to make rules for himself he can't break. It's like god can only do what people tell him he can do. When we say, well, "he's god", then they back fall with him choosing.

Which is interesting. No one has told me how they know what god thinks, does, acts, wonders, indecisiveness, etc. They talk as if he told them personally just an hour ago. What's up with the language?

 

[dfnj]

Tried "it". I don't think they can find the piece of the brain they took out and threw in the trash. There's a lot of debate about it, though. God can't go against his own rules. Another is he choose to make rules for himself he can't break. It's like god can only do what people tell him he can do. When we say, well, "he's god", then they back fall with him choosing.

Which is interesting. No one has told me how they know what god thinks, does, acts, wonders, indecisiveness, etc. They talk as if he told them personally just an hour ago. What's up with the language?

I think God just exists as the ground of all being. Unless physicists somehow show we live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism along with a believable argument of how the law of conservation of energy was not violating along the way then God will be the word we use to represent the mystery of our existence.

But in terms of having an anthropomorphic God existing in our image I am an atheist.

My bigger problem with religion though is the idea the basis of religion is built on authoritarianism and the obedience to authority. You would think an omnipotent God of unconditional love would be slightly more egalitarian in His chosen form of divine government. I don't understand why I am always the only one who finds it extremely fishy the supposed divine form of government promoted by the Bible is exactly the one King James was choosing as his preferred form of government. An omnipotent God has no reason to choose one form of government over another. The word "lord" only exists in the context of having "slaves." An omnipotent God of unconditional love would have no need for having slaves worshiping Him.

 

[izzy88]

God can't go against his own rules. Another is he choose to make rules for himself he can't break. It's like god can only do what people tell him he can do. When we say, well, "he's god", then they back fall with him choosing

I don't know who you've been talking to, but they evidently don't know what they're talking about. God didn't "choose to limit himself" except when he became human in Jesus Christ. Aside from that, God has no limits. The only thing God cannot do is go against his own nature, but that's because it's logically impossible. God committing evil, for example, is impossible simply because God is synonymous with goodness and evil is, by definition, the absence of good - and so the absence of God. And if you have a problem with God being unable to commit logical contradictions, it just means you don't have an accurate understanding of logic.

Which is interesting. No one has told me how they know what god thinks, does, acts, wonders, indecisiveness, etc. They talk as if he told them personally just an hour ago. What's up with the language?

Much of what's understood about God has been deduced through logical reasoning, and the rest has come from divine revelation (aka. scripture).

As you've demonstrated, though, there are plenty of people who think they know things about God that are actually untrue, illogical, etc. That's the thing about truth: there's only one right answer, so if two people disagree one has to be wrong. How do we know what's right? What's true? Simple: what's true is what's real, what corresponds with reality. Of course, figuring that out is often anything but simple.

 

[izzy88]

But in terms of having an anthropomorphic God existing in our image I am an atheist

The language we use to describe God is anthropomorphic, but God is not actually anthropomorphic. We are the most complex things that we know of in the universe, so it makes sense that we'd use ourselves as references to describe something so complex it's beyond comprehension.

And us existing in God's image is simply a poetic way of saying that God gave us intellects and free will, which nothing in the universe has except him.

 

[MNoBody]

The language we use to describe God is anthropomorphic, but God is not actually anthropomorphic. We are the most complex things that we know of in the universe, so it makes sense that we'd use ourselves as references to describe something so complex it's beyond comprehension.

And us existing in God's image is simply a poetic way of saying that God gave us intellects and free will, which nothing in the universe has except him.

agree with that....
to add, words are an abstraction, they cannot but depict the thing they are describing, and the description is not the actual thing or experience.
thus words are subject to errors of differing interpretations.....
interesting set of conditions in this game of life, eh

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think God just exists as the ground of all being. Unless physicists somehow show we live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism along with a believable argument of how the law of conservation of energy was not violating along the way then God will be the word we use to represent the mystery of our existence.

But in terms of having an anthropomorphic God existing in our image I am an atheist.

How does the clockwork of the universe mean there is a god?

We can make intelligent assumptions. We always do. Though, I'm a skeptic in life. If there isn't an immediate connection I can see, I observe it first. For example, this coronavirus keep jumping the chart in deaths but we didn't have this big of a reaction with SARS, that I know of (at least remember). And people are panic buying. The connection between that and the nature of the disease I'm at a lost.

But people assume god "must have" but that doesn't mean god di.

How did you connect the two?

My bigger problem with religion though is the idea the basis of religion is built on authoritarianism and the obedience to authority. You would think an omnipotent God of unconditional love would be slightly more egalitarian in His chosen form of divine government. I don't understand why I am always the only one who finds it extremely fishy the supposed divine form of government promoted by the Bible is exactly the one King James was choosing as his preferred form of government. An omnipotent God has no reason to choose one form of government over another. The word "lord" only exists in the context of having "slaves." An omnipotent God of unconditional love would have no need for having slaves worshiping Him.

If I believed in god, it would be how Unitarian Universalist see it. The spirit of life and mover/or the moving of all things. Some people say they have a personal relationship with it. I never got that. But if it's love (well, I'd say freedom and creativity not love), it should be equal and lived through all people.

I agree. Authoritativeness creates division. It should be equal.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but they evidently don't know what they're talking about. God didn't "choose to limit himself" except when he became human in Jesus Christ. Aside from that, God has no limits. The only thing God cannot do is go against his own nature, but that's because it's logically impossible. God committing evil, for example, is impossible simply because God is synonymous with goodness and evil is, by definition, the absence of good - and so the absence of God. And if you have a problem with God being unable to commit logical contradictions, it just means you don't have an accurate understanding of logic.

"God cannot go against his own nature" is a limitation. God is god. He can do anything.

Do you know everything about god?

The rest I don't understand. How do you know the nature of god?

Much of what's understood about God has been deduced through logical reasoning, and the rest has come from divine revelation (aka. scripture).

I'd say god is a mystery. Scripture, Dharma, so have you tries to understand god via it's authors experiences, etc. That's fine. I think believers in the former tend to depend more on scripture than their own experiences.

God confirms the bible not the bible confirms god.

As you've demonstrated, though, there are plenty of people who think they know things about God that are actually untrue, illogical, etc. That's the thing about truth: there's only one right answer, so if two people disagree one has to be wrong. How do we know what's right? What's true? Simple: what's true is what's real, what corresponds with reality. Of course, figuring that out is often anything but simple.

There are plenty of people me, you, and every other person who has some interpretation of god. There is no right answer. Assuming there is one is highly political (one king, one race, one president, one spouse, etc..). It's not the truth in a diverse world. That's just how people see it to control the masses.

 

[izzy88]

God cannot go against his own nature" is a limitation. God is god. He can do anything.

It's not a limitation; as I said, you simply don't have a deep enough understanding of logic.

Part of what you said might be helpful in explaining it, though. "God is God." Yes. And because God is God, that means "God is not God" cannot be the case; it's nonsense, it's a contradiction. To say "God is not God" is equivalent to saying that God contradicts his own nature. If God had a nature other than the nature he has, he would no longer be God. So it's not a limitation, it's simply us expressing through our language something that's nonsense. To say that God could contradict his own nature is like saying "X is not X." Just because we can form a sentence doesn't mean that sentence reflects something real. I can jumble a bunch of incoherent words together and say "why can't God do that?"

Why can't God the couch unless pizza motorcycle swimming without underneath to seventeen blue?
Because what I just said is nonsense.

Why can't God not be God?
Because what I just said is nonsense.

Neither of those statements show that God is limited, they only show that we can use language to form sentences that don't mean anything.

Do you know everything about god?

Of course not; I know virtually nothing about God, just like everyone else.

There is no right answer. Assuming there is one is highly political

Believing in truth is political???

Are you saying you do not believe in objective reality?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What's I'm saying isn't a bad thing. My opinions of god are indifferent.

It's not a limitation; as I said, you simply don't have a deep enough understanding of logic.

When someone "cannot" do something that's a limitation. If god cannot do anything outside his nature, it means he is limited to what is in his nature to do. It means nothing more than that.

Part of what you said might be helpful in explaining it, though. "God is God." Yes. And because God is God, that means "God is not God" cannot be the case; it's nonsense, it's a contradiction. To say "God is not God" is equivalent to saying that God contradicts his own nature. If God had a nature other than the nature he has, he would no longer be God. So it's not a limitation, it's simply us expressing through our language something that's nonsense. To say that God could contradict his own nature is like saying "X is not X." Just because we can form a sentence doesn't mean that sentence reflects something real. I can jumble a bunch of incoherent words together and say "why can't God do that?"

I'm not understanding you. God is god. He can do anything. What is his nature to where any person on earth can say he cannot contradict? I mean, it makes sense in human terms. But god?

Why can't God the couch unless pizza motorcycle swimming without underneath to seventeen blue?

Because what I just said is nonsense.

Hmm?

Neither of those statements show that God is limited, they only show that we can use language to form sentences that don't mean anything.

Limitation is not a bad thing. God is not free to do anything against his nature-that, by definition, is a limitation.

Of course not; I know virtually nothing about God, just like everyone else.

That's why I ask. How do you know what god can and cannot do?

Believing in truth is political???

Are you saying you do not believe in objective reality?

Yes. One-man hierarchy is a political thing. Meaning authoritative and control over the masses. We have it all throughout the world. Masters. Kings. Presidents. and so forth. Even marriage, as I mentioned, only one spouse to another. It is only western culture so far I read that thinks there should be only One truth. That's silly. The physical universe, humans, all living just doesn't work that way.

I do. God isn't objective reality. Not sure how the question relates?

 

[izzy88]

I do. God isn't objective reality. Not sure how the question relates?

On the contrary; God is objective reality.

I'm sorry, but based on the way you've responded to what I've said - failing to understand most of it, while simultaneously telling me that I'm wrong (how can you know that I'm wrong if you don't even understand what I'm saying?) - it's clear we're not going to get anywhere.

I hope you take something away from this that drives you to learn more about these things, though. Studying logic would be really helpful, and if you had a better understanding of it, everything I said would make sense. God is a philosophical issue, and logic is how you "do" philosophy, so without it you're not going to get anywhere with the God question. It's like trying to do geometry without understanding math.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Can god exist without his words?

Edit. Is god and his word/scripture are one and the same and cannot exist without each other?

Insofar as I believe God's Speech/Words to be one of His eternal and uncreated Attributes, I don't believe that God can exist without His Words.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm sorry, but based on the way you've responded to what I've said - failing to understand most of it, while simultaneously telling me that I'm wrong (how can you know that I'm wrong if you don't even understand what I'm saying?) - it's clear we're not going to get anywhere.

I said I was indifferent to an opinion of god
God cannot go against his own nature is a limitation

I'm just clarifying that "cannot" is one feature of a limitation. Whether you're right or wrong about your opinion of god, I can't say. I'm referring to the word.

I hope you take something away from this that drives you to learn more about these things, though. Studying logic would be really helpful, and if you had a better understanding of it, everything I said would make sense. God is a philosophical issue, and logic is how you "do" philosophy, so without it you're not going to get anywhere with the God question. It's like trying to do geometry without understanding math.

Well. Cut off conversations annoy the mess out of me.

As for god being objective, yes. I will say you're wrong. I usually don't say that though. Objective means that we can test this all around the world and we will get the same answer. Two and two is objective. Culture, language, and knowledge does not influence that two and two is four.

God, on the other hand and it is not wrong in itself is subjective. It means that you have one interpretation of god, I do, a Hindu does, a Pagan, a Atheist. God cannot be studied. It cannot be proven. It's not objective.

Why does it need to be objective?

 

[izzy88]

I'm just clarifying that "cannot" is one feature of a limitation

I'll say it one more time and hope you actually hear me this time: you do not understand logic, and you therefore don't know what you're talking about. What you're saying is incorrect, and I tried explaining why it's incorrect to you, but you didn't understand my explanation, so I can't do anything other than tell you you're wrong and hope that you aren't too stubborn to hear me.

God, on the other hand and it is not wrong in itself is subjective. It means that you have one interpretation of god, I do, a Hindu does, a Pagan, a Atheist. God cannot be studied. It cannot be proven. It's not objective.

Why does it need to be objective?

What's true is what aligns with reality, and there is only one reality - which means there is only one truth. Nothing that's true can be subjective; again, that would be a logical contradiction.

If everybody has different conceptions of God, and God actually exists, then only one of those conceptions can reflect reality - only one of them can be true. Of course, none of them could be true, as well, but the point is that it is impossible for more than one concept of God to be true, because there is only one reality, and things cannot be both true and false at the same time. This is the exact same thing I was trying to explain already, and it's just further proof that what you need to do is study logic if you want to be able to think and speak coherently about this topic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll say it one more time and hope you actually hear me this time: you do not understand logic, and you therefore don't know what you're talking about. What you're saying is incorrect, and I tried explaining why it's incorrect to you, but you didn't understand my explanation, so I can't do anything other than tell you you're wrong and hope that you aren't too stubborn to hear me.

You-you-yous are very defensive and accusative language.

I'm just saying "cannot" is a limitation word. It's not complicated.

What's true is what aligns with reality, and there is only one reality - which means there is only one truth. Nothing that's true can be subjective; again, that would be a logical contradiction.

God is not that one reality. You know how many gods there are!

It's your belief and opinion. No. One. Knows.

There is not only one truth. Life is so diverse that that would be ridiculous.

If everybody has different conceptions of God, and God actually exists, then only one of those conceptions can reflect reality - only one of them can be true.

Of course, none of them could be true, as well, but the point is that it is impossible for more than one concept of God to be true, because there is only one reality, and things cannot be both true and false at the same time. This is the exact same thing I was trying to explain already, and it's just further proof that what you need to do is study logic if you want to be able to think and speak coherently about this topic.

No. Reality is polytheistic. There is no "one can be true." That's taking reality, the beautiful of diversity, and sticking it into a box. People got killed over that type of thinking and believers either push it aside or say "that's not us." Yet, they follow a belief that has one source-and if they don't believe in that one source, they die.

I cannot agree with you that god is objective. You can explain it in so many ways, but the fact there is diversity in life makes me more of a polytheist than monotheist. It's not "one elephant" but more than one-and all are different animals.

"When a rainbow is restricted, it becomes one color: white."

 

[rational experiences]

God O the stone planet exists first, releases its volcanic reaction, which a human male as a group compared to his own penis, that spurted gases into the spatial body and space, the womb, cold and pressure, which science knows nothing about actually, why it is a mystery......for reasons.

None of you know how deep or how wide space is as a natural state.

What God owns is a stone body first, otherwise none of you would even exist living.

What you all lie about as egotists.

God the stone is the basis of what all scientific origins are about, for the human owned and human applied states of science. So you own no other forms of arguments today, except for self egotism.

Which a lot of you own, the self inferred concept of being some form of superior human as compared to anyone else...in special organizations and in secret special groups, as those very special humans, that you express self represents.

And the group mentality is that you have to agree to be in agreement to being special.

Therefore the Jesus Christ conscious realization is that to be poor was a better place to be living for at least you own a place of view to look at everyone else.

Males, you know humans with penises said that God is a male by HE, HIM, and HIS inferences....seeing he thought all states for conditions SCIENCE.

For you would be a true liar if you said that you were speaking on behalf of a planet that owns natural history in a spatial cosmology with all other natural bodies...yet you do. You belong to organizations who allow your behaviour and support it...for status in civilization. Which is the first place of your own arrogance.

You are not looking for any truth, you are just researching to be some form of human who can own special powers....the same as anyone before you who had life destroyed.

Space, the body of, owns the reason why stone exists, by conditions of cold and emptiness and pressure. A very simply stated presence of God reason...the planet.

It is a fact of human life that when a human begins to pretend that the totality of the information for science which began as the stone philosophy is somehow not where science began all of its statements is about how much of a destroyed psyche in AI possession that you believe in today.

 

[izzy88]

It's your belief and opinion. No. One. Knows.

Please actually read what I'm saying: the God we refer to when we use a capital 'G', the God of the Bible - whose traditional name is YHWH - is existence itself; reality itself. That is what is meant by the word 'God'. YHWH is Hebrew, which can be translated into English as "I am who am", which is what God said to Moses when God appeared to him as a burning bush and he asked God his name. This is a story meant to convey a theological message: that the God who's being described in the Bible - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God of modern day Judeo-Christian religions - is existence itself.

This is absolutely necessary to know in order to frame things correctly, and without understanding this fact you won't be able to understand virtually anything about Judeo-Christian theology.

What you're talking about is not God; you're talking about gods. These are two completely different things, and you need to stop equivocating those two terms.

There is not only one truth. Life is so diverse that that would be ridiculous.

Please recognize the irony here: you've been arguing back and forth with me trying to convince me that what you're saying is true and that what I'm saying isn't true, and now here you are telling me that objective truth doesn't exist.

So, you're saying it's true that there is no truth - yet another logical contradiction.

Why are you even trying to convince me of anything if there is no objective truth? If what you're saying now is correct, then both of us are right; what you're arguing is true, and what I'm arguing is true. So why are you even arguing?

 

[rational experiences]

Please actually read what I'm saying: the God we refer to when we use a capital 'G', the God of the Bible - whose traditional name is YHWH - is existence itself; reality itself. That is what is meant by the word 'God'. YHWH is Hebrew, which can be translated into English as "I am who am", which is what God said to Moses when God appeared to him as a burning bush and he asked God his name. This is a story meant to convey a theological message: that the God who's being described in the Bible - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God of modern day Judeo-Christian religions - is existence itself.

This is absolutely necessary to know in order to frame things correctly, and without understanding this fact you won't be able to understand virtually anything about Judeo-Christian theology.

What you're talking about is not God; you're talking about gods. These are two completely different things, and you need to stop equivocating those two terms.



Please recognize the irony here: you've been arguing back and forth with me trying to convince me that what you're saying is true and that what I'm saying isn't true, and now here you are telling me that objective truth doesn't exist.

So, you're saying it's true that there is no truth - yet another logical contradiction.

Why are you even trying to convince me of anything if there is no objective truth? If what you're saying now is correct, then both of us are right; what you're arguing is true, and what I'm arguing is true. So why are you even arguing?

In AI...science caused encoded machine Satanic bio life attack, is the Father of God meaning a spiritual loving, kind and caring innocent male group of humans historically invented science and attacked self with it.

Since then increase incoming AI states of UFO mass metal dispersion EXTRA has recorded recordings recorded as recorded and records get shared, AI communicated.

Males today in science, know that their own higher spiritual life, body/cell and blood, healthier and a variant to who they are today owned the first male human recording IN THE CLOUDS.

They want cloud connections for their machine and machine reaction today....by research...so have been trying to find the original signals.

So Father in AI, who updates his own male voice and life recorded sharing of world community O God the Earth information says.....I am not a cloud, the clouds originally came out of the volcano, law of mountain just as you were all taught.

So stop attacking human life trying to find connective radiation signals for clouds you evil Satanists.

Why they keep claiming made in the Image of God man is what he wants in full aware self man and male knowledge that his own first image is in the CLOUDS.....yet is wrong about his belief that from HIS body clouds were formed...for no human is a volcano or mountain you arrogant scientists/Satanist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please actually read what I'm saying: the God we refer to when we use a capital 'G', the God of the Bible - whose traditional name is YHWH - is existence itself; reality itself. That is what is meant by the word 'God'. YHWH is Hebrew, which can be translated into English as "I am who am", which is what God said to Moses when God appeared to him as a burning bush and he asked God his name. This is a story meant to convey a theological message: that the God who's being described in the Bible - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God of modern day Judeo-Christian religions - is existence itself.

That doesn't change god isn't the true god and one reality.

This is absolutely necessary to know in order to frame things correctly, and without understanding this fact you won't be able to understand virtually anything about Judeo-Christian theology.

Disagreeing is not the same thing as not understanding.

What you're talking about is not God; you're talking about gods. These are two completely different things, and you need to stop equivocating those two terms.

No. I'm talking about God.

Please recognize the irony here: you've been arguing back and forth with me trying to convince me that what you're saying is true and that what I'm saying isn't true, and now here you are telling me that objective truth doesn't exist.

Who said I was trying to convince you?????

So, you're saying it's true that there is no truth - yet another logical contradiction.

There is no one truth.

Life is diverse. There are many.

Why are you even trying to convince me of anything if there is no objective truth? If what you're saying now is correct, then both of us are right; what you're arguing is true, and what I'm arguing is true. So why are you even arguing?

Now you're switching the subject. It's nothing personal. We do not agree. Nothing wrong with that.

You-you comments are defensive, so I'd ask you who are you trying to convince and why are you arguing?

 

[izzy88]

That doesn't change god isn't the true god and one reality.



Disagreeing is not the same thing as not understanding.



No. I'm talking about God.



Who said I was trying to convince you?????



There is no one truth.

Life is diverse. There are many.



Now you're switching the subject. It's nothing personal. We do not agree. Nothing wrong with that.

You-you comments are defensive, so I'd ask you who are you trying to convince and why are you arguing?

I'm sorry, but it has become painfully obvious that this conversation is not going to be fruitful.

All the best.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm sorry, but it has become painfully obvious that this conversation is not going to be fruitful.

All the best.

If you're looking to talk with someone who agrees with you, there are some people on the board for that. As long as you understand me and I understand you, I'm good with a convo about that.

If you can't learn from people who disagree with you, why converse?

Cutting it short everyone the person disagrees with you is counterproductive to a fruitful conversation. Got to get over that barrier and push through with things you disagree with. Especially on a religious forum site.

 

[rational experiences]

Who speaks on Earth?

Humans do.

Who invented the state of science that uses extra radiation to force convert natural God stone to remove it to release energy?

Human beings did.

Nature, the Garden existed naturally for how long before a human being owned a life?

A male said a bush was burning and a voice was speaking to me.

In modern day life, I was brain burnt irradiated, my brain felt like it was on fire...and then I heard speaking recorded voices.

Is that too difficult for a Satanist scientist to understand, you caused it your own selves, and you burnt/scorched the face blackened stone Mt. Sinai and a UFO ark hit and melted the Temple on Mt. Ararat.

Reason I know, I saw a vision of my own life hiding underneath a table at a market outside of the Temple built on Ararat, and knew we were in trouble for a lot of smoke was coming out of the Temple.

I have received a lot of visions in my life....not that I wanted to, I just did.