TLK Valentine
Read the books that others would burn.
The term 'god' means 'mighty one', basically.
But for the purposes of this discussion, what's a definition we can use?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The term 'god' means 'mighty one', basically.
Something thing with the power to create, destroy, and inspire.
Now you see why there are so many "gods".
This reply isn't to argue against your point. In fact, I know this problem about myself all too well. Jumping from A to Z in discussion with people without explaining the steps that I got there. I have bipolar disorder and it's especially bad when I'm off medications. I did explain to you my position without the argument at first, although I did mention how change is part of this. I will explain this idea of change further.A coherent thesis is literally a collection of arguments in support of a position. You aren't presenting arguments. You are presenting your conclusions and falsely calling them arguments.
I appreciate that you took the time to write that. The section I quoted above is as far as I got. I am probably not the correct audience for this discussion with you. You're starting to from a presumption of the existence of God and then discussing its nature. I am not willing to start with that presumption.This reply isn't to argue against your point. In fact, I know this problem about myself all too well. Jumping from A to Z in discussion with people without explaining the steps that I got there. I have bipolar disorder and it's especially bad when I'm off medications. I did explain to you my position without the argument at first, although I did mention how change is part of this. I will explain this idea of change further.
Based on what I've seen people be able to do in my lifetime, there is more than enough evidence to me that pretty much all change is possible. Again, this is a conclusion rather than an argument supported by facts. I get that. It's hard to explain the full nuances of process theology but if you already knew what it meant, you must have heard other people explain this idea to you in a way that was supported by evidence. I have to be honest, when I read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead I barely understand most of it. I mostly understand these positions when they are boiled down in simple to understand explanations that ChatGPT feeds me. In fact, most of process theology is foreign to me, and I'm not expecting you to read that book, which would literally be homework for you.
But the way I understand it currently is that because life exists God has creativity and this creativity allows people to shape the reality they've always wanted. Based on this, the logical extreme of this argument, the conclusion, is that the possibility of change allows God to be developed
Hey Audie, once again… more and more megafauna are being discovered throughout the northern lattitudes, as the Permafrost is thawing… their remains - most of which is putrefied, but some are in well-preserved condition - have been found within it; not on top of it, but encased within it.So you claim to have proof of God.
Droll.
Considering your demonstrated immunity
to fact and reason re geology, we have our doubts
O
Hmm. Your position is that you know what you are talking about. My position is that you have yet to present a cohernet thesis, and are completely unaware of that lack. Can there ve a greater divide than that?
...
Some of what you list as fact is real enough.Hey Audie, once again… more and more megafauna are being discovered throughout the northern lattitudes, as the Permafrost is thawing… their remains - most of which is putrefied, but some are in well-preserved condition - have been found within it; not on top of it, but encased within it.
And it’s fresh-water, not salt water. That excludes an ocean event.
So how did this phenomenon occur? I remember now: you ignore those facts.
And the other facts I’ve presented, you prefer to dismiss as unfortunate coincidences, I guess.
Can someone truly love something they don’t understand?
You haven't made one. A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion. You have made no effort to support your conclusions. The only thing that I have gotten is a bunch of baled assertions and stuff that you imagine about me.
I was already aware of those definitions, but I cannot throw too much guff on someone providing the definitions for what they awant to talk about.
However.
And this is a big however.
Do you understand what you have provided -- in thst post as well as your previous -- is only a recitation of what you believe?
There is no meat on your bones. No ligaments. No blood. No tendons. No vital support.
A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion.
Lots of " friends" tooI love lots of people and I don't really understand them at all. So yes.
Lots of " friends" too
We Asians have a very different understanding of what
love is.
And that a person is fortunate to have e even one true friend or love in a lifetime.
Talk of love and friendship is cheap.
Action is hard. And rare.
Which has nothing to do with what I said.I think love transcends culture, and that the experience of giving and receiving love is the same for all of humanity.
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
If you "love" lots of people, then what you
are calling "love" is something cheap. shallow and
essentially meaningless to us.
I think that what @Audie is saying is that what you are calling love is a non-substantive facade. That love is the product of a complex interplay between people; constantly being crafted and refined. That what you are calling love is a plastic extruded facsimile that one might find in a McDonalds Happy Meal. Easily discarded, replicated and replaced.I disagree. Love is not something we need to be miserly about. Indeed, the more freely we give it away, the greater is the stock of it in our own hearts.
I think that what @Audie is saying is that what you are calling love is a non-substantive facade. That love is the product of a complex interplay between people; constantly being crafted and refined. That what you are calling love is a plastic extruded facsimile that one might find in a McDonalds Happy Meal. Easily discarded, replicated and replaced.
You just demonstrated that you only knowI know what love is. Maybe one day both you and Audie will too.
You just demonstrated that you only know
the shallow facade of puppy love.
It takes some maturity to understand more
than that.
Good luck.
Neither am I.I'm not talking about romance.
By that definition, anything can be a god.
I think that what @Audie is saying is that what you are calling love is a non-substantive facade. That love is the product of a complex interplay between people; constantly being crafted and refined.
That what you are calling love is a plastic extruded facsimile that one might find in a McDonalds Happy Meal. Easily discarded, replicated and replaced.