Originally posted by dottewell Well by that definition, everyone could believe in "god".
Which means the definition isn't very helpful.
Don't get me wrong, God is a distinct entity even though he is the totality of reality. We refer to him as a triune being. Why do we know this? It is because we were created in his image and we too are a triune being. We have a body, soul, and spirit. When the Son of God came to earth, the disciples asked him to show them the Father. Jesus promptly replied that if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Does this mean that the Father was in the physical form of Christ? No, it does not. It means that Christ is and was God's word incarnate. Christ is equated with what God is saying to man and therefore is like talking directly to God. Scripture does say that God is a spirit and is like a consuming fire. It further says that mortal man could not look upon him in his physical sinful nature and survive. Yet it is possible for him to relate to us and talk to us without having to directly confront him. We do this by reading his word, and through prayer and meditation. I equate it to talking on the phone to someone that is not directly in front of you. You could even say the same for when Christ walked among us.
Originally posted by whodey Don't get me wrong, God is a distinct entity even though he is the totality of reality. We refer to him as a triune being. Why do we know this? It is because we were created in his image and we too are a triune being. We have a body, soul, and spirit. When the Son of God came to earth, the disciples asked him to show them the Father. Jesus promptly repl ...[text shortened]... is not directly in front of you. You could even say the same for when Christ walked among us.
Look, of course it is open to you to say: our feeble minds can have no real idea of what it means for a being to be omnipresent in the physical world, yet also exist outside it; our feeble minds can have no real idea of what it means to embody perfect goodness.
What I want you to explain is why this doesn't render sentences like "God embodies perfect goodness" meaningless.
If you then say: well I don't know exactly what it means, this is a matter of faith, then the point arises that you don't actually know what it is you supposedly have faith in.
And this might seem to be mystical to the point of absurdity.
Originally posted by dottewell Look, of course it is open to you to say: our feeble minds can have no real idea of what it means for a being to be omnipresent in the physical world, yet also exist outside it; our feeble minds can have no real idea of what it means to embody perfect goodness.
What I want you to explain is why this doesn't render sentences like "God embodies perfect go edly have faith in.
And this might seem to be mystical to the point of absurdity.
God is good because God is a God of love. You should therefore concern yourself with what love is. Read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 to understand what love is defined as in the Bible.
Originally posted by dottewell And this might seem to be mystical to the point of absurdity.[/b]
God may seem like a mystical concept to you, however, what is the alternative? The alternative is much more mystical. You have a mystical Big Bang from a mystical source that exploded by a mystical means which some how mystically transforms lifeless matter into living matter. Life iteself is mystical. What makes something living? This position raises more questions than it answers.
Originally posted by whodey God may seem like a mystical concept to you, however, what is the alternative? The alternative is much more mystical. You have a mystical Big Bang from a mystical source that exploded by a mystical means which some how mystically transforms lifeless matter into living matter. Life iteself is mystical. What makes something living? This position raises more questions than it answers.
The word Life is merely a word used for classification purposes. Therefore life is whatever fits into the particular definition of the word you choose to use. What makes something living? Fitting into the classification of course! There is nothing mystical about it. The myst is all in your mind.
How you conclude that a concept of God is somehow 'less' mystical is beyond me.
Originally posted by twhitehead The word Life is merely a word used for classification purposes. Therefore life is whatever fits into the particular definition of the word you choose to use. What makes something living? Fitting into the classification of course! There is nothing mystical about it. The myst is all in your mind.
How you conclude that a concept of God is somehow 'less' mystical is beyond me.
I have never heard of life referred to as a classification. In my view life is mysterious and awe inspiring.
Originally posted by whodey I have never heard of life referred to as a classification.
Really?
Is the steering wheel of your car alive?
Are you?
If you answer one with Yes and one with No, you have a classification. The steering wheel belongs to the class of non-living things, and you belong to the class of living things, of which life is a distinguishing characteristic.
Originally posted by whodey I have never heard of life referred to as a classification. In my view life is mysterious and awe inspiring.
Except in a religious sense where you are actually talking about conciousness or the soul, the word life is nothing but a classification, and one whose edges are blured, something people who claim that life could not have come from non-life dont seem to realise.
Interestingly it should be possible to have inteligence and conciousness without life, and also to have non-biological life or even non-physical life for example an advance computer virus.
If you answer one with Yes and one with No, you have a classification. The steering wheel belongs to the class of non-living things, and you belong to the class of living things, of which life is a distinguishing characteristic.
Cool, huh?
So what in your opinion classifies something as being alive?
Originally posted by twhitehead .
Interestingly it should be possible to have inteligence and conciousness without life, and also to have non-biological life or even non-physical life for example an advance computer virus.[/b]
It should be possible to have intelligence and conciousness without life? Then where is it?
Who is fool'in who?
30 May '06 17:48
Back to Top