Page 7 of 7
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2025 4:11 am
by AlonsoAcevesMX
Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 8:48 am
AlonsoAcevesMX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:28 pm
This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.
Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?
You're a thought. Do you think a thought is going to occupy 'no thought'.
The 'changeless' can be realised only when the ever-changing thought-flow stops.
Thought trying to grasp ‘no thought’ runs into a wall—because the very act of grasping is movement, and movement is change. To realize the changeless, the stream of thought doesn’t need to be conquered, just seen for what it is: a fluctuation, not a foundation. Only when it quiets—not by force, but by insight—can what’s ever-still be revealed
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2025 10:11 am
by Martin Peter Clarke
Both everything and nothing, i.e. not everything, cannot change.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2025 6:43 am
by Fairy
“For one who knows me, I am one with him; for one who wants to know me, I am very near to him; and for one who does not know me, I am a beggar before him.”
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:18 pm
by MikeNovack
Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 6:43 am
“For one who knows me, I am one with him; for one who wants to know me, I am very near to him; and for one who does not know me, I am a beggar before him.”
How do YOU interpret that, especially the last part?
I am not a Christian, and also I have failed to identify where the statement if from to get context. But for just the statement by itself, given the context of the first two, being with or being close to would depend on how I treated that beggar. It implies a third way independent from knowing or wanting to know.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2025 7:43 pm
by Fairy
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:18 pm
Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 6:43 am
“For one who knows me, I am one with him; for one who wants to know me, I am very near to him; and for one who does not know me, I am a beggar before him.”
How do YOU interpret that, especially the last part?
I am not a Christian, and also I have failed to identify where the statement if from to get context. But for just the statement by itself, given the context of the first two, being with or being close to would depend on how I treated that beggar. It implies a third way independent from knowing or wanting to know.
You are God
To not know this is to be a beggar in your own kingdom. One can know they are everything, or they can be totally oblivious of their sovereignty, hence the beggar.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2025 12:36 am
by MikeNovack
WOW, we really interpret that differently.
I guess I am influenced by the many traditions in which god or god's emissary appears as a beggar. For example, in Jewish tradition it would be Eliyahu (Elijah). According to how the beggar is treated depends the Mressianic Age.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2025 6:23 am
by Fairy
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 12:36 am
WOW, we really interpret that differently.
I guess I am influenced by the many traditions in which god or god's emissary appears as a beggar. For example, in Jewish tradition it would be Eliyahu (Elijah). According to how the beggar is treated depends the Mressianic Age.
In the dream, anything and everything can happen. And yet, nothing ever happened in a dream.