Christianity

[popeye1945]

All words are qualifications and/or limitations!

Which means 'what', EXACTLY?

It might actually MEAN that UNTIL the Right ORDER of words, with Right definitions, IS FOUND the ACTUAL Truth OF and ABOUT God, and ALL things, will NOT BE UNCOVERED, right?

My apologies. I am just having a senior's moment a little early.

[Fairy]

AGE:

But, some people some times 'reason' BETTER, [logically], on some things, than others DO, [illogically].

To me, those who SEEK OUT 'wisdom' PICK 'an issue', and 'logically reason' WITH 'others, until an answer, the Truth, and/or a resolution IS FOUND, AGREED UPON, and ACCEPTED. To me, 'they' certainly do not PICK "a side", and then just fight FOR nor AGAINST ANY "side", NOR 'position.

That’s not the point.

It doesn’t matter how or which way people see God. Interpretations of God are bound to differ. Just as 6 different artists are assigned to paint the same “coastal landscape”are not all going to paint the exact same scene identically. All 6 paintings are going to appear different, even though the artists were all gazing at the exact same “coastal landscape”

That’s how I personally see why everyone’s idea of God must differ. And just because they differ doesn’t mean some of those differences are illogical or irrational, or down to just poor reasoning skills. How shallow to assume things like that?
No one is trying to pick sides, or make this into a competition to see which interpretation fits better. It’s not about winning or being the best team. It’s about a simple uncomplicated “recognition” that God is without doubt or error. That’s all that matters, knowing and understanding that.


I’m tired of the hypocrisy that is the attitude of some of the philosophers on this forum. It’s an attitude of intellectual snobbery. It’s like if you don’t have PhD masters degree level of education into the subject of sciences and philosophy then you simply have poor reasoning. That’s just click mentality.

Atto understands God the only way he does. Could there have been a better way for atto to know God, no of course not.
Same goes for Immanuel Can, he understands God the only way he does. Could there have been a better way for IC to know God, no of course not. Same for Fairy, and I’m sure you too AGE understand God in your own unique way as well.

Do we need to all agree with our own personal views of what God means to us as individuals, No, we don’t.
Do we need to all agree that God exists, yes we do, and the latter is more important than the former.

What about those who don’t believe in God? That’s totally irrelevant, those who don’t believe are welcome not to believe, they are as much entitled to their opinion as anyone else. However, I really don’t think it’s wise for nonbelievers to change the mind of believers. How’s that going to work out?

It’s up to the personal individual to choose their own decision when it comes to making up their own mind as to what God is, and how they personally interpret what God means to them. Ultimately we’re all just describing the same one God differently that’s all, and to me, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.

Just as there’s nothing wrong with how people choose to dress their naked bodies every morning. We’re not all going to put on the same clothes, or agree to wearing the same identical clothes. We’re all unique with our own preferences. That’s how God made us, we’re definitely not robots. We have the capacity to think for ourselves.



The main point is, it’s obvious God is, just as you are, IS.

[Age]

All words are qualifications and/or limitations!

Which means 'what', EXACTLY?

It might actually MEAN that UNTIL the Right ORDER of words, with Right definitions, IS FOUND the ACTUAL Truth OF and ABOUT God, and ALL things, will NOT BE UNCOVERED, right?

My apologies. I am just having a senior's moment a little early.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER one who just DOES NOT CLARIFY in regards to what it ACTUALLY MEANS.

[Belinda]

Think about it. Santa Claus was just another name for God. They just changed the name; you still believe in Santa Claus! With a different name but the same foundation. I don't want to live in that house!!

you are FREE TO BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing you like.

But, besides the characteristic of being another 'male', (ONCE MORE), what else do "santa claus" and God have IN COMMON, in your OWN particular and OWN peculiar versions of the two?

I too wondered that! The jolly old gift giver in the red robe is not everyone's idea of God.

[Belinda]

AGE:

But, some people some times 'reason' BETTER, [logically], on some things, than others DO, [illogically].

To me, those who SEEK OUT 'wisdom' PICK 'an issue', and 'logically reason' WITH 'others, until an answer, the Truth, and/or a resolution IS FOUND, AGREED UPON, and ACCEPTED. To me, 'they' certainly do not PICK "a side", and then just fight FOR nor AGAINST ANY "side", NOR 'position.

That’s not the point.

It doesn’t matter how or which way people see God. Interpretations of God are bound to differ. Just as 6 different artists are assigned to paint the same “coastal landscape”are not all going to paint the exact same scene identically. All 6 paintings are going to appear different, even though the artists were all gazing at the exact same “coastal landscape”

That’s how I personally see why everyone’s idea of God must differ. And just because they differ doesn’t mean some of those differences are illogical or irrational, or down to just poor reasoning skills. How shallow to assume things like that?
No one is trying to pick sides, or make this into a competition to see which interpretation fits better. It’s not about winning or being the best team. It’s about a simple uncomplicated “recognition” that God is without doubt or error. That’s all that matters, knowing and understanding that.


I’m tired of the hypocrisy that is the attitude of some of the philosophers on this forum. It’s an attitude of intellectual snobbery. It’s like if you don’t have PhD masters degree level of education into the subject of sciences and philosophy then you simply have poor reasoning. That’s just click mentality.

Atto understands God the only way he does. Could there have been a better way for atto to know God, no of course not.
Same goes for Immanuel Can, he understands God the only way he does. Could there have been a better way for IC to know God, no of course not. Same for Fairy, and I’m sure you too AGE understand God in your own unique way as well.

Do we need to all agree with our own personal views of what God means to us as individuals, No, we don’t.
Do we need to all agree that God exists, yes we do, and the latter is more important than the former.

What about those who don’t believe in God? That’s totally irrelevant, those who don’t believe are welcome not to believe, they are as much entitled to their opinion as anyone else. However, I really don’t think it’s wise for nonbelievers to change the mind of believers. How’s that going to work out?

It’s up to the personal individual to choose their own decision when it comes to making up their own mind as to what God is, and how they personally interpret what God means to them. Ultimately we’re all just describing the same one God differently that’s all, and to me, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.

Just as there’s nothing wrong with how people choose to dress their naked bodies every morning. We’re not all going to put on the same clothes, or agree to wearing the same identical clothes. We’re all unique with our own preferences. That’s how God made us, we’re definitely not robots. We have the capacity to think for ourselves.



The main point is, it’s obvious God is, just as you are, IS.

But Fairy, we must have some notion of what 'God' refers to, otherwise the word and name 'God' is meaningless., or perhaps only social convention.
For some the word and name 'God' is performative like we say "How are you" "I am very well thanks" and nobody expects anything more that a recognition that the other is a non-hostile human being

There is an important difference between your "that’s how God made us, we’re definitely not robots. We have the capacity to think for ourselves." on the one hand and "God made us so that we can do nothing that God has not decided we do"on the other hand. In the first case God is like President Biden, in the second case God is like President Trump.

As a matter of fact and to take your useful example of a group of people all painting the same coastal landscape, Trump has decreed that we are not free to decide for ourselves, and the arts must accord with the political views of Trump and Co. Trump could decree that people are not permitted to paint non repesentational pictures.Trump has already sacked the people who have been running a major concert hall. Hitler and Stalin too decreed that only Nazi ,or Communist, art was legal.

[popeye1945]

Which means 'what', EXACTLY?

It might actually MEAN that UNTIL the Right ORDER of words, with Right definitions, IS FOUND the ACTUAL Truth OF and ABOUT God, and ALL things, will NOT BE UNCOVERED, right?

My apologies. I am just having a senior's moment a little early.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER one who just DOES NOT CLARIFY in regards to what it ACTUALLY MEANS.

The meaning is profoundly obvious to anyone functioning on all cylinders. Qualifications, and/or limitations give location, and identity to beings. I was being polite about your limitations.

[attofishpi]

BELINDA - You appear to have forgot to continue our conversation..

Attofishpi wrote:

My point being, and as you may have noticed, I use the term KEY words. These words imo have been manipulated through the minds of men unbeknownst to them by this underlying intelligence (GOD) into their current form.

This is the main cause of our disagreement. Simply, I don't believe in that sort of God. I.e. the sort of God who intervenes in history.

Am i correct to infer that you believe in some form of GOD? A spinozan form perhaps?

If you like you may put your theory to the test; suggest any English word and I guarantee I will be able to invent how the word holds an arcane meaning.

Yippy! Now you're talking. Much of the point I am making is regarding the CUMULATIVE evidence, thus any word taken on an individual account can be almost dismissed.

So have a look at the etymological root of the following two words, of course they have no common root..

EVIL

LIVE

Part of the argument I am making of course is that both words have NO lineage etymologically, but DO provide a LOGICAL connection in consideration of the thread title, here and now in their present form.

HELLO <-- which you still have not acknowledged a correlation to the thread title - being HELL_owe (*something spoken about within the Bible)

Please, lets continue our conversation without the engagement of the other scatter brains currently in our midst.

[Age]

AGE:

But, some people some times 'reason' BETTER, [logically], on some things, than others DO, [illogically].

To me, those who SEEK OUT 'wisdom' PICK 'an issue', and 'logically reason' WITH 'others, until an answer, the Truth, and/or a resolution IS FOUND, AGREED UPON, and ACCEPTED. To me, 'they' certainly do not PICK "a side", and then just fight FOR nor AGAINST ANY "side", NOR 'position.

That’s not the point.

The words 'the point' REFERRING TO 'what', EXACTLY?

It doesn’t matter how or which way people see God. Interpretations of God are bound to differ.

ONCE MORE, INTERPRETATIONS OF God are ONLY bound TO DIFFER UNTIL people come-together, peacefully, TO FIND OUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT.

If, and WHEN, 'this' IS REACHED, then the DIFFERING and BICKERING, in regards TO God, CEASES and DISMISS.

I am NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES 'I' HAD TO INFORM 'these people' that ONCE they get RID OF their OWN INTERPRETATIONS, (BELIEFS & ASSUMPTIONS), THEN, and ONLY THEN they COULD MOVE FORWARD and PROGRESS, here. And, that IS WHEN they COULD, and DID, CATCH UP, AS WELL.

Just FOR your information it DOES ACTUALLY MATTER HOW, and WHICH WAY, people SEE 'things', INCLUDING even God, Itself.

Just as 6 different artists are assigned to paint the same “coastal landscape”are not all going to paint the exact same scene identically.

BUT, WAS, or IS, there ANY 'issue' AT ALL regarding 'what' A 'coastal landscape' ACTUALLY IS, and/or even IF A 'coastal landscape' ACTUALLY EXISTS, or NOT?

If no, then, hopefully, you CAN and ARE SEEING the HUGE DIFFERENCE, here.

All 6 paintings are going to appear different, even though the artists were all gazing at the exact same “coastal landscape”

Maybe so, and PROBABLY SO. However, 'this' IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE.

Although it IS a GOOD ANALOGY ABOUT HOW the 'brain' WORKS, compared to HOW the 'Mind' WORKS. Which may well come in 'VERY HANDY', as some might say, here, in explaining things, later on.

That’s how I personally see why everyone’s idea of God must differ.

Does EVERY one's idea of 'water', 'earth', 'fire', and/or 'stone', for example MUST DIFFER, AS WELL?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But, if yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

And just because they differ doesn’t mean some of those differences are illogical or irrational, or down to just poor reasoning skills.

If, in your 'painting of a coastal landscape' example, some one were to paint a 'whale' or a 'fire engine' for example, then do you seriously NOT think that those differences are illogical or irrational, or just poor reasoning skills, in ANY WAY AT ALL?

A painting, drawing, explanation, description, or model of some 'thing' no matter how DIFFERENT 'sort of' HAS TO ALIGN WITH the ACTUAL 'thing', otherwise to paint, draw, explain, describe, or make a 'model of' DEFEATS the ACTUAL PURPOSE.

How shallow to assume things like that?

Are you CONSIDERING what I AM POINTING OUT, SAYING, and SHOWING, here, NOW?

No one is trying to pick sides, or make this into a competition to see which interpretation fits better.

REALLY?

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' are SEEING 'things', here, DIFFERENTLY than 'I' AM.

And, you SAYING and WRITING things like, 'How shallow to assume things like that', CONVEYS A SENSE OF 'COMPETITION', as well as, 'your view' is MORE RIGHT or MORE TRUE than 'my view' is.

It’s not about winning or being the best team. It’s about a simple uncomplicated “recognition” that God is without doubt or error.

So, if ANY one PAINTS, or DESCRIBES, 'a picture' of 'God' as a blue fire engine with a vagina and a beard, who lives at the base of a coastal landscape, and who created half of the Universe all in once instance, then, to you anyway, 'that God' is without doubt or error, correct?

That’s all that matters, knowing and understanding that.

So, if ALL one is saying and stating is that God IS 'without doubt or error', then so be it. However, if ANY one wants to 'TRY TO' CLAIM that God has a penis and gonads, created the WHOLE Universe, all in one instance, then 'I' AM GOING TO QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'them'.

After all 'we' are IN A 'philosophy forum', here.

Also, and by the way, if ANY one makes ANY CLAIM ABOUT God, Itself, which 'I' KNOW, or even THINK, to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, then if 'I' WANT TO and/or CHOOSE TO QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'them' then 'I' SHALL DO SO, okay?

For example, if ANY were to SAY and CLAIM, here, that God is without doubt', then 'I' WOULD QUESTION 'them' ABOUT, 'Why then are there so many human beings WHEN that CLAIM is being made DOUBT that God exist or was even ever real? If God is supposedly without doubt, then WHY do so many DOUBT God?

I’m tired of the hypocrisy that is the attitude of some of the philosophers on this forum.

YET you have just been 'TRYING TO' ARGUE FOR and JUSTIFY that NOT just ANY one can have ANY 'idea' or 'view' ABOUT some 'thing' but that actually EVERY one WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT 'idea' AND DIFFERENT 'view' ABOUT ANY and/or EVERY 'thing'.

It’s an attitude of intellectual snobbery. It’s like if you don’t have PhD masters degree level of education into the subject of sciences and philosophy then you simply have poor reasoning. That’s just click mentality.

ONCE AGAIN, 'I', for One, have NEVER EVER even just 'thought', let alone 'suggest', let alone 'said' and 'claimed' ANY such thing, as 'this', so WHY 'this' is being BROUGHT UP in A response TO 'me' ONLY you will KNOW, for sure.

What I have been SAYING and SUGGESTING, throughout this forum, is just LOOK AT EVERY thing from a Truly OPEN perspective, as well as POINTING OUT and SHOWING the RIDICULOUS OF PICKING A "side", and/or HAVING A 'position/belief', and arguing or fighting FOR 'that side" or 'that position', when one has NOT YET even OBTAINED and GAINED the ACTUAL PROOF FOR 'it'.

Atto understands God the only way he does.

Is there, COULD THERE BE, ANY human being who does NOT understand ANY thing, the ONLY WAY they do?

Did you just PRESENT A Fact, here?

Could there have been a better way for atto to know God, no of course not.

Are you, REALLY, SAYING or SUGGESTING, here, that you human beings, especially when CHILDREN, could NOR or can NOT be 'brought up' or 'raised' IN a BETTER WAY?

Same goes for Immanuel Can, he understands God the only way he does. Could there have been a better way for IC to know God, no of course not.

WHY do you KEEP SAYING and CLAIMING 'of course not'? There are a COUNTLESS NUMBER OF OTHER and 'BETTER WAYS' you human beings COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.

Same for Fairy, and I’m sure you too AGE understand God in your own unique way as well.

JUST MAYBE "fairy" SOME HAVE A CLEARER or MORE Accurate and MORE Correct 'view', or 'picture', of some thing than others do. Or, is 'this' NOT even A POSSIBILITY IN "fairy's" 'world view' of things?

Understanding things, in one's own unique way', will NEVER MEAN that ANY one of 'those many unique ways' ARE Accurate and/or Correct, NOR even CLOSE TO BEING Accurate and/or Correct.

LOOK there is NO USE in 'TRYING TO' ARGUE NOR FIGHT FOR you human beings having your OWN UNIQUE VIEW/S OF things. And WHY this is is BECAUSE there is ABSOLUTELY NO one who does NOT ACCEPT this IRREFUTABLE Fact NOR who DISAGREES WITH you.

In other words what you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here, IS JUST BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

But, what IS JUST AS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS IS that SOME have A CLOSER 'perspective' or 'view' of the ACTUAL THING, than others do.

Now, if you do NOT ACCEPT this, and/or do NOT DISAGREE WITH this, then feel ABSOLUTELY FREE TO 'TRY TO' ARGUE and/or FIGHT AGAINST this.

Do we need to all agree with our own personal views of what God means to us as individuals, No, we don’t.

LOL To even WANT TO DO SO, let alone TO ACTUAL DO SO, would be ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, LUDICROUS, RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, AND INSANE.

Do we need to all agree that God exists, yes we do, and the latter is more important than the former.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, TO "fairy" EVERY one not just has DIFFERENT VIEWS, BUT HAS TO HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS, and this is, supposedly, ALL WELL and GOOD. In fact 'this' is, supposedly, SO WELL and SO GOOD, that NO one needs TO AGREE ON ANY thing. HOWEVER, EVERY one NEEDS TO and thus HAS TO AGREE ON, and WITH, "fairy's" OWN UNIQUE and PERSONAL VIEW, that 'God does exist'.

"fairy" you mentioned before, up post, about HYPOCRISY, and, 'an ATTITUDE of INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY', I WONDER IF 'you' can NOTICE ANY, here, NOW?

What about those who don’t believe in God? That’s totally irrelevant, those who don’t believe are welcome not to believe, they are as much entitled to their opinion as anyone else.

BUT, just ONE sentence prior you were CLAIMING and thus INSISTING that 'we' ALL NEED TO AGREE that 'God exists'.

you are KNOWN to CHANGE, quite often, and quite quickly, but from one sentence to the very next sentence PRESENTING A COMPLETELY OPPOSING VIEW and CLAIM is 'going a bit too far', as some would say, is it not?

However, I really don’t think it’s wise for nonbelievers to change the mind of believers. How’s that going to work out?

It would probably 'work out' the EXACT SAME WAY as "believers" CHANGING 'the thoughts' of "nonbelievers".

Also, do you, also, really not think it is wise for "believers" to change 'the thoughts, and the thinking', of "nonbelievers", AS WELL?

Or, do it is 'WISE' in ONLY ONE WAY, and NOT IN the OTHER WAY?

It’s up to the personal individual to choose their own decision when it comes to making up their own mind as to what God is, and how they personally interpret what God means to them.

Has ABSOLUTELY ANY one, here, SAID or SUGGESTED ANY thing OTHER-WISE?

Also, and by the way, HOW FAR do you think A CHILD 'would get', in the 'current' world or life, if 'they' CHOSE their OWN DECISION that 2 + 2 = 22, for example?

AGAIN, HOW ANY one PERSONALLY CHOOSES TO INTERPRET ABSOLUTELY ANY thing is, OBVIOUSLY, OF their OWN CHOOSING.

HOWEVER, and AGAIN, SOME INTERPRETATIONS TO the ACTUAL 'thing' BEING INTERPRETED ARE MUCH CLOSER than OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OBVIOUSLY ARE.

For example, ANY INTERPRETATION that God is 'a male creature' with a penis and gonads, who created the WHOLE Universe, ALL at one instance, is OBVIOUSLY NOWHERE NEAR to being even REMOTELY CLOSE TO what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

But, as you KEEP POINTING OUT and SHOWING, here, you, and all of the others of the species human being, are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY ANY INTERPRETATION AT ALL and/or TO BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

For, OBVIOUSLY, NOT even God, Itself, FORCES you human beings to SEE, to ACCEPT, to BELIEVE, nor to DISBELIEVE ANY thing AT ALL.

you adult human beings are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO MAKE ANY and ALL OF your OWN CHOICES.

Ultimately we’re all just describing the same one God differently that’s all, and to me, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.

Okay. SO 'my NEW, now CHANGED, interpretation of God', IS - God is the planet known as 'mars' to human beings and who created EVERY thing, including 'fairies' who were created to just about ALWAYS be Wrong in their OWN UNIQUE INTERPRETATIONS OF God, Itself.

And, to ALL "fairies", there will be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, IN ANY"age" HAVING this INTERPRETATION, and for ALL an "age" there will be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING 'that'.

Just as there’s nothing wrong with how people choose to dress their naked bodies every morning. We’re not all going to put on the same clothes, or agree to wearing the same identical clothes.

Can you REALLY NOT NOTICE and SEE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'explaining/describing' AN ACTUAL 'thing', FROM, just making A DECISION, or A CHOICE, of what kind, and/or what color, of material to cover a human body with?

We’re all unique with our own preferences.

SOME of you UNIQUELY DIFFERENT human beings LIKE TO and/or CHOOSE TO HARM and/or HURT OTHER human beings, you are NOT suggesting that there is, ALSO, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Wrong WITH DOING 'this', OBVIOUSLY, Wrong TO ALL "misbehavior"?

That’s how God made us, we’re definitely not robots. We have the capacity to think for ourselves.

you human beings were CREATED, through EVOLUTION, WITH the ABILITY TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, and EVERY thing.

you human beings, however, can ONLY OBTAIN and GAIN 'information', which IS what 'informs' 'you' TO BE-COME what 'you' ARE. Some of the 'information', which is gathered through the five senses, is then stored within 'the brain', and is held as 'thought', or 'knowledge'. Now, OBVIOUSLY, because EVERY UNIQUE human body HAS UNIQUELY DIFFERENT 'experiences', what this IRREFUTABLY MEANS IS that WITHIN EACH and EVERY human body ARE UNIQUELY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', and/or 'knowledge'. What this ALSO IRREFUTABLY MEANS IS that if A human body has NOT YET EXPERIENCE some thing, then the 'thoughts' (and/or 'knowledge') WITHIN 'that body' can NOT be EXPECTED TO HAVE YET LEARNED and/nor KNOW 'some thing'.

'That person', which is just the 'thoughts and emotions', WITHIN 'that body', has, literally, NOT YET BEEN 'in-formed' of 'that thing'. And, it is ONLY through the continual 'FORMATION' or IN-PUTTING of 'IN-FORM-ation' WITHIN human bodies, HOW and WHY, through evolution, itself, God, Itself, COMES TO KNOW thy Self.

The Truth/s of 'Life', Itself, are being FORMED WITH-IN the continually evolving FORMS of 'life'. And, at the 'stage' or 'level' of this CONTINUAL TRANS-FORMATION, 'you', human beings, are, OBVIOUSLY, AT 'where you are'.

The main point is, it’s obvious God is, just as you are, IS.

WHY does it TAKE 'you' SO LONG to just make an OBVIOUS POINT, OBVIOUS?

[Fairy]

AGE wrote:

ONCE MORE, INTERPRETATIONS OF God are ONLY bound TO DIFFER UNTIL people come-together, peacefully, TO FIND OUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT.

My personal interpretation of God is that which is animating this body making it conscious of being alive.
God is also that which is growing the grass.

That’s my very simplified idea of what God means to me personally.

So are you Age, coming together, peacefully, getting on board, agreeing with my finding? Or not?

If not, then do you recognise a dilemma here?

[Belinda]

AGE wrote:

ONCE MORE, INTERPRETATIONS OF God are ONLY bound TO DIFFER UNTIL people come-together, peacefully, TO FIND OUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT.

My personal interpretation of God is that which is animating this body making it conscious of being alive.
God is also that which is growing the grass.

That’s my very simplified idea of what God means to me personally.

So are you Age, coming together, peacefully, getting on board, agreeing with my finding? Or not?

If not, then do you recognise a dilemma here?

There is a dilemma going to happen if and when someone insists there is one version of God that suits everyone.

I suggest the criterion is that what you hold to be most worthy is your God. In Fairy's case, for instance, what Fairy describes as her God is actually nature's laws.

[attofishpi]

Attofishpi wrote:

My point being, and as you may have noticed, I use the term KEY words. These words imo have been manipulated through the minds of men unbeknownst to them by this underlying intelligence (GOD) into their current form.

This is the main cause of our disagreement. Simply, I don't believe in that sort of God. I.e. the sort of God who intervenes in history.

Am i correct to infer that you believe in some form of GOD? A spinozan form perhaps?

If you like you may put your theory to the test; suggest any English word and I guarantee I will be able to invent how the word holds an arcane meaning.

Yippy! Now you're talking. Much of the point I am making is regarding the CUMULATIVE evidence, thus any word taken on an individual account can be almost dismissed.

So have a look at the etymological root of the following two words, of course they have no common root..

EVIL

LIVE

Part of the argument I am making of course is that both words have NO lineage etymologically, but DO provide a LOGICAL connection in consideration of the thread title, here and now in their present form.

HELLO <-- which you still have not acknowledged a correlation to the thread title - being HELL_owe (*something spoken about within the Bible)

[Age]

My apologies. I am just having a senior's moment a little early.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER one who just DOES NOT CLARIFY in regards to what it ACTUALLY MEANS.

The meaning is profoundly obvious to anyone functioning on all cylinders. Qualifications, and/or limitations give location, and identity to beings.

'We' FINALLY got here.

So, 'now' WHY did you SAY and WRITE 'what you did', here, in this thread, of all places?

I was being polite about your limitations.

But you NEVER MENTIONED MY so-called 'limitations'.

'you' are NOT even ABLE TO ANSWER the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and Correctly, YET. And, you certainly can NOT INFORM the readers, here, of who AND what 'you' are, EXACTLY, either.

So, BEFORE you could even 'TRY TO' be so-called 'polite' ABOUT ANY thing regarding 'me' SHOW 'the readers', here, what 'you' KNOW ABOUT 'you', FIRST.

[Age]

BELINDA - You appear to have forgot to continue our conversation..

Attofishpi wrote:

My point being, and as you may have noticed, I use the term KEY words. These words imo have been manipulated through the minds of men unbeknownst to them by this underlying intelligence (GOD) into their current form.

This is the main cause of our disagreement. Simply, I don't believe in that sort of God. I.e. the sort of God who intervenes in history.

Am i correct to infer that you believe in some form of GOD? A spinozan form perhaps?

If you like you may put your theory to the test; suggest any English word and I guarantee I will be able to invent how the word holds an arcane meaning.

Yippy! Now you're talking. Much of the point I am making is regarding the CUMULATIVE evidence, thus any word taken on an individual account can be almost dismissed.

So have a look at the etymological root of the following two words, of course they have no common root..

EVIL

LIVE

Part of the argument I am making of course is that both words have NO lineage etymologically, but DO provide a LOGICAL connection in consideration of the thread title, here and now in their present form.

HELLO <-- which you still have not acknowledged a correlation to the thread title - being HELL_owe (*something spoken about within the Bible)

Please, lets continue our conversation without the engagement of the other scatter brains currently in our midst.

So, does 'hello' MEAN God owes you human beings hell? Or, something else?

[attofishpi]

So, does 'hello' MEAN God owes you human beings hell? Or, something else?

Close (*the other way around).

The significance being, that HELLO is the standard greeting in the English speaking world.

GOD/Christ have often stated about us being destined to HELL, so yes, akin to owe HELL,

Ergo, HELL_O phonetically = HELL owe

Thus, the SIGNIFICANCE I have been asking Belinda to recognise.

Good boy Age, now off you go and allow myself and Belinda to discuss all the other quirks of the English LAN_gauge.

[Age]

AGE wrote:

ONCE MORE, INTERPRETATIONS OF God are ONLY bound TO DIFFER UNTIL people come-together, peacefully, TO FIND OUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT.

My personal interpretation of God is that which is animating this body making it conscious of being alive.

Okay, I AGREE, PARTLY, WITH 'this interpretation', but is it 'the body'', EXACTLY, which is conscious of being alive, or something else?

God is also that which is growing the grass.

I AGREE God may well be 'growing the grass', as well as 'growing' absolutely everything ELSE, but who and/or what is 'God', EXACTLY.

you are more or less just, here, saying - 'It' grows grass, and, 'It' animates 'a body'.

Are 'you' ABLE TO ELABORATE ANY FURTHER?

WHO and WHAT IS 'It', EXACTLY?

That’s my very simplified idea of what God means to me personally.

So are you Age, coming together, peacefully, getting on board, agreeing with my finding? Or not?

Answered above, here.

If not, then do you recognise a dilemma here?

MOOT.