Originally posted by twhitehead [b]That was not the only contradiction pointed out. You also use many words which would not stand up very well to scrutiny, such as 'source', 'power' etc.
I am still very uncomfortable with your choice of the letter 'G' 'O' and 'D' to describe your concept which is as you acknowledge nothing to do with what is commonly meant by the same three letters albeit ...[text shortened]... y and confuse and mislead the reader into thinking that a definition can change an object.
First, stand up well and define the Universe.
I will stop using GOD when all Jews,Christians and Muslims stop using God and use the correct phrase, "I am who I am" when they refer to their deity. After all, that is what the deity supposedly told Moses when asked, by what name shall we call you. Your comfort is not relevant.
Originally posted by caissad4 First, stand up well and define the Universe.
Look it up in a dictionary and you will find it matches your definition of GOD very well. So why invent new words?
I will stop using GOD when all Jews,Christians and Muslims stop using God and use the correct phrase, "I am who I am" when they refer to their deity. After all, that is what the deity supposedly told Moses when asked, by what name shall we call you. Your comfort is not relevant. A very pathetic excuse. You might as well say "I will not stop using the wrong word for bread until the remote tribe on Vanuatu also stops using the wrong word for bread.
There is nothing 'correct' about "I am who I am" when referring to a deity even the Judeo-Christian one. If they choose not to use the name that you believe they were told to use then that is their choice. For them to use the standard English word for a deity should not be criticized. They correctly capitalize the first letter to indicate it is a single entity and not one of many. You however not only invent words unnecessarily but use non-standard practice with regards to case and intentionally use the same letters as already used for a totally different meaning.
As I said, I can only guess that the sole purpose of your use of those letters is to deceive or mislead. Do you have a better excuse? Your current excuse of "everybody else does it so I can too" is I repeat, pathetic.
Originally posted by twhitehead [b]Look it up in a dictionary and you will find it matches your definition of GOD very well. So why invent new words?
[b]I will stop using GOD when all Jews,Christians and Muslims stop using God and use the correct phrase, "I am who I am" when they refer to their deity. After all, that is what the deity supposedly told Moses when asked, by what name shall w ...[text shortened]... e purpose of your use of those letters is to deceive or mislead. Do you have a better excuse?
The Hebrew translation of the phrase "I am who I am" is where the names Jehovah, or Yahweh come from, so you seem to be rather confused without my post.
The confusion and anger you obviously feel is your own creation. My post alone could not exert such control.
Originally posted by caissad4 The Hebrew translation of the phrase "I am who I am" is where the names Jehovah, or Yahweh come from, so you seem to be rather confused without my post.
The confusion and anger you obviously feel is your own creation. My post alone could not exert such control.
I am not angry or particularly confused. What is the relevance of where Jehovah or Yahweh come from? Are you planning to start using JEHOVAH and YAHWEH now? Do you actually have a response to my challenge on your use of GOD or not?
Originally posted by twhitehead I am not angry or particularly confused. What is the relevance of where Jehovah or Yahweh come from? Are you planning to start using JEHOVAH and YAHWEH now? Do you actually have a response to my challenge on your use of GOD or not?
Your protestation and subsequent reply concerning your anger and confusion is quite interesting. You want argument for the sake of argument.
And do you actually believe that you have the right or authority to challenge someone over the use of a word.
Sorry for hitting a nerve.
Angela
Originally posted by twhitehead I am not angry or particularly confused. What is the relevance of where Jehovah or Yahweh come from? Are you planning to start using JEHOVAH and YAHWEH now? Do you actually have a response to my challenge on your use of GOD or not?
I just noticed another of your posts where you state "There is not such thing as an "authentic" definition."
But in this thread you wish to do just that.
That is bad logic.
Originally posted by caissad4 Your protestation and subsequent reply concerning your anger and confusion is quite interesting. You want argument for the sake of argument.
And do you actually believe that you have the right or authority to challenge someone over the use of a word.
Sorry for hitting a nerve.
Angela
Your insistence on avoiding actually responding to my point is even more interesting. I do not want argument for the sake of argument, nor am I 'challenging' you. I am pointing out that it is only likely to cause confusion and that your use of it can only be interpreted as an attempt to deceive. If I am wrong, please correct me, but over the course of several posts you have avoided doing so.
The only 'nerve' you may have hit is the one where you intentionally avoid admitting that what I am saying is true and rather go off at a tangent with things like "well if the Jewdeo Christian lot don't use the right word, then I'll do what I like." I mean, what sort of an argument is that?
Originally posted by caissad4 I just noticed another of your posts where you state "There is not such thing as an "authentic" definition."
But in this thread you wish to do just that.
That is bad logic.
It is not bad logic. You simply do not understand what I am saying. I did not say in this thread that there was an 'authentic' definition. In both threads I am arguing that it is wise to avoid confusion by sticking with the most common use definitions of words where possible and that redefining words invariably is a sign of an attempt to deceive.
Originally posted by caissad4 Yes. Positive and negative are opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak.
Look very closely at the picture I use here. It shows death actually comprised of life. Look very closely. It was used in a Process magazine.
I have some pictures like it.
People used to talk about the Great Work, an application of the principle symbolised in the picture.
Originally posted by caissad4 Would it make it easier if you substituted the phrase "the Universe" where ever the word "GOD" is found ?
The silly Christian myth of selective salvation could also be called "a rancid pile of garbage". (An all-knowing God creates beings which he knows will not be "saved" and then sends them to Hell for not believing.) Contradiction.
BTW, this is a teaching from a religion, not something which I authored.
Angela
The Universe is not everything. There are other possible instances of everythings in other places, and other universes... however all of this is theoretical.
Originally posted by rwingett What a rancid pile of garbage this post is. You start off giving a rather extensive description of what god allegedly is and then immediately contradict yourself by claiming god cannot be described. You seem to sense this glaring contradiction in 1.3 and try to explain it away by saying 'describing' is not describing. You then conclude by giving more descriptions of god. Excuse me for finding this all to be a tad unconvincing.
Don't you think that the unclear presentation would be fixed by simply adding a few words?
1.2 GOD cannot be fully defined or adequately described. To to have completely described GOD is to have completely defined GOD, and to have completely defined GOD is to reduce GOD to a finite limited existence.
Originally posted by caissad4 Would it make it easier if you substituted the phrase "the Universe" where ever the word "GOD" is found ?
The silly Christian myth of selective salvation could also be called "a rancid pile of garbage". (An all-knowing God creates beings which he knows will not be "saved" and then sends them to Hell for not believing.) Contradiction.
BTW, this is a teaching from a religion, not something which I authored.
Angela
It is not because of not believing will any be lost to Hell, as if the
belief or lack there of is the fault, it is due to sin. Liken it to the
Titanic, the sinking of the ship killed people once they hit the water,
the water killed them, not that they didn't make it to the life rafts.
People don't go into life rafts all the time and do not die.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay It is not because of not believing will any be lost to Hell, as if the
belief or lack there of is the fault, it is due to sin. Liken it to the
Titanic, the sinking of the ship killed people once they hit the water,
the water killed them, not that they didn't make it to the life rafts.
People don't go into life rafts all the time and do not die.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio Don't you think that the unclear presentation would be fixed by simply adding a few words?
1.2 GOD cannot be fully defined or adequately described. To to have completely described GOD is to have completely defined GOD, and to have completely defined GOD is to reduce GOD to a finite limited existence.
I like that! This text was written in 1968 and I have been working on some changes just like you propose. Thank you.
Originally posted by UzumakiAi The Universe is not everything. There are other possible instances of everythings in other places, and other universes... however all of this is theoretical.
It is an entertaining notion that the Universe is subject to reincarnation, or would that be reuniversification?
Excerpt from the Process Teaching "GOD IS"
31 Jan '08 09:551 edit
Back to Top