Christianity

[Belinda]

So, you believe that Jesus existed and went to his death claiming to be the son of God and went to his death for sticking to that statement, but believe he was a liar?

"Son of God" to a practising and believing Jew meant and means a devotee of the God.

What about the bit where he confimed he was the Christ? Still just a liar?

The Christ means the prophet and leader. It's nothing to do with supernatural magical tricks.

[attofishpi]

"Son of God" to a practising and believing Jew meant and means a devotee of the God.

What about the bit where he confimed he was the Christ? Still just a liar?

The Christ means the prophet and leader. It's nothing to do with supernatural magical tricks.

Christ means Messiah.

"Supernatural magical tricks"? From experience God is ALL reality - pantheism\panentheism. Turning water into wine is nothing compared to what I have been witness to since 1997. As I have stated before, my only question re the water to wine "miracle" is whether it was a Shiraz or Cab\Sav\Merlot etc..

It's a shame that people have so much doubt in what Christ stated, that to know God is via faith in him..nevermind.

[Belinda]

What about the bit where he confimed he was the Christ? Still just a liar?

The Christ means the prophet and leader. It's nothing to do with supernatural magical tricks.

Christ means Messiah.

"Supernatural magical tricks"? From experience God is ALL reality - pantheism\panentheism. Turning water into wine is nothing compared to what I have been witness to since 1997. As I have stated before, my only question re the water to wine "miracle" is whether it was a Shiraz or Cab\Sav\Merlot etc..

It's a shame that people have so much doubt in what Christ stated, that to know God is via faith in him..nevermind.

Messiah means prophet and leader. Christ is Greek. Messiah is Aramaic.

[attofishpi]

The Christ means the prophet and leader. It's nothing to do with supernatural magical tricks.

Christ means Messiah.

"Supernatural magical tricks"? From experience God is ALL reality - pantheism\panentheism. Turning water into wine is nothing compared to what I have been witness to since 1997. As I have stated before, my only question re the water to wine "miracle" is whether it was a Shiraz or Cab\Sav\Merlot etc..

It's a shame that people have so much doubt in what Christ stated, that to know God is via faith in him..nevermind.

Messiah means prophet and leader. Christ is Greek. Messiah is Aramaic.

I know Christ is Greek - lost in translationS.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Existence always existed.

"Existence" is an attribution, not a "thing." "Redness" or "heaviness" are also attributions: not everything has them, and there was a time when nothing did.

Some "things" have it, and some "things" don't. Only one Entity has always had it, and always will.

You are not that Entity. The universe is not that Entity. That's empirically certain.

Good Lord but you are weird.

The Sanskrit term sat refers to the notion of existence-being-awareness and it is a way to refer to what you mean when you use the word *god*. What exists (in reference to god) is being and perhaps (in English) you might say beingness. Yet the idea is, in relation to god, the supreme being, that god is sat-chit-ananda. Being/awareness (chit = consciousness) - and ananda (which refer to complete satisfaction ('bliss') in itself).

Being, beingness, ever-awareness, absolute consciousness -- these are the words used to translate the meaning in those dense Sanskrit terms.

There are, you brainless cockroach of an intellect, similar terms employed in Christian and also Jewish theology.

The beingness of god, the sat-chit-ananda that is god (in the Vedic conception), certainly could not be referred to as a thing you dolt! But the reference is to something that, by nature, exists eternally. There is simply no alternative possible.

Can you once in a while, just as a favor to me, act as if you have a mind that could even pretend to operate outside of your belovèd categories?!?

There was never *a time* when Being was not.

To amend a Ginsberg line:

What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open your skull and ate up your brain and imagination?

[Alexis Jacobi]

compared to what I have been witness to since 1997

Fair enough. But what if anything did you witness in 1996?

[Alexis Jacobi]

As I have stated before, my only question re the water to wine "miracle" is whether it was a Shiraz or Cab\Sav\Merlot etc.

Thinking it over it had to have been an effervescent wine.

[attofishpi]

As I have stated before, my only question re the water to wine "miracle" is whether it was a Shiraz or Cab\Sav\Merlot etc.

Thinking it over it had to have been an effervescent wine.

Lamb.brusco!!!

[Age]

I just wrote;
But what I SEE "iambiguous" is asking for and requesting from 'you', "immanuel can", is that 'you' just note an article, from a publication of your choice, which discusses the Christian God, without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word, of God, from within the Christian Bible itself.

I gave you an article that did exactly that.

No you did not.

It was from a publication of my choice: PN.

Correct.

It discusses the Christian God.

It does not fall back on any assessment derived from the Word of God.

Incorrect.

It does not require the Christian Bible.

But it is an assessment derived from the Words, which are said to be of God, from within the "christian" bible.

And you said you didn't find it met your standards?

LOL I NEVER even thought such a thing, let alone said such a thing.

I have NO standards here. I just supplied you with MY INTERPRET ION of what it was "iambiguous" was asking you for. I did this because 'you' continually could NOT work out what was being asked for.

It met every standard you actually asked for.

But I was NOT asking for absolutely ANY thing here.

I was just expressing what I thought "iambiguous" was asking for, from you.

but if you've now changed your mind, and want more "standards" or different "standards," just say what they are, and again, I'll see what I can do for you.

I have NOT wanted ANY thing here, let alone CHANGED ANY thing here, so the rest of what you wrote here was just completely UNNECESSARY.

[Age]

If it existed, if it exists, it had to exist eternally.

Like the universe...which verifiably, empirically, scientificatlly DIDN'T?

LOL ANOTHER one AND ANOTHER example of BELIEFS BLINDING one to what is ACTUALLY an IRREFUTABLY True.

Or you? Or me? Or anything material at all?

Only one "thing" exists eternally. And He's not a "thing."

LOL 'you' STILL BELIEVE that that 'It' Thing is male gendered.

'you' are PROVING "yourself" to be MORE BLIND, and so MORE STUPID, the MORE 'you' talk and write here "immanuel can".

[Age]

Existence always existed.

"Existence" is an attribution, not a "thing." "Redness" or "heaviness" are also attributions: not everything has them, and there was a time when nothing did.

Some "things" have it, and some "things" don't. Only one Entity has always had it, and always will.

You are not that Entity. The universe is not that Entity.

What IS the 'Entity' then? AND do NOT just say, 'God', EXPLAIN who and/or what that 'Entity' IS, EXACTLY?

But, BECAUSE 'you' can and thus will NOT, then this SHOWS and PROVES how LITTLE 'you' REALLY KNOW regarding this subject "immanuel can".

That's empirically certain.

'you' CLAIM to KNOW what is EMPIRICALLY CERTAIN, BUT there is NOT a 'scientific text' that SAYS this.

The ONLY 'thing' CERTAIN here is that 'you' are TOTALLY BLIND and STUPID here "immanuel can".

'you' are SINNING in the HIGHEST FORM here, and so continuing to do so MEANS that 'you' end up WHERE, EXACTLY?

[Belinda]

Age quoted and replied to Immanuel Can:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Or you? Or me? Or anything material at all?

Only one "thing" exists eternally. And He's not a "thing."
LOL 'you' STILL BELIEVE that that 'It' Thing is male gendered.

'you' are PROVING "yourself" to be MORE BLIND, and so MORE STUPID, the MORE 'you' talk and write here "immanuel can".

It's merely a tradition to call God "He". Everybody knows that God of our day and age is genderless and sexless or ,better, is inclusive of all genders and all sexes. IC is not so stupid as not to be aware of this.

Age, there are far more important matters for you to object to.

[attofishpi]

-

[attofishpi]

compared to what I have been witness to since 1997

Fair enough. But what if anything did you witness in 1996?

How about an exercise in philosophy?

Care to take me on with a POV from a hypothetical Christian God perspective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

How about an exercise in philosophy?

Care to take me on with a POV from a hypothetical Christian God perspective?

I am not closed to an “exercise in philosophy” if it might also include an exercise in drinking…

Ho! Ho! Ho! to the bottle I go
To heal my heart and drown my woe.
Rain may fall and wind may blow,
And many miles be still to go,
So under a tree I will lie,
And let the clouds go sailing by.

I’ll theologize you under the table, m’boy.