The Unification of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 02:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  Well that explains your attitude at least. I never meant to imply you had no right to post your opinion. I seriously doubt you read the post that showed all the different definitions given to the term god or else you would not have claimed I proved nothing, when in fact I proved in black and white that they all made up their own definitions of god and then didn't believe in them based on that criteria. I pointed out that if that is what god meant or gods meant then I too would be an atheist.

"Imply"?

(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  You weren't even there, so you have no place to stand and say anything about it.

That is not implied. That is stated plainly and outright.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 02:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is the internet, the forums are an archive. I can go back a look up any thread I want and work my way through it. Not being present at the time does not disqualify me from the debate, because these debates are not held in real time. So I find it amusing that you'd defend your own right to post your opinion while demanding that I did not have that same right.

[Image: a47.jpg]

That is why you are a hypocrite, and why you can go fuck yourself. Drinking Beverage
Well that explains your attitude at least. I never meant to imply you had no right to post your opinion. I seriously doubt you read the post that showed all the different definitions given to the term god or else you would not have claimed I proved nothing, when in fact I proved in black and white that they all made up their own definitions of god and then didn't believe in them based on that criteria. I pointed out that if that is what god meant or gods meant then I too would be an atheist.


What's this? You wouldn't be trying moving the goal post and weasel out of this, are you? Consider

(09-09-2013 10:11 PM)childeye Wrote:  Finally, what exactly do you expect me to prove to you? I've proven Love exists and is the highest moral power for which most all sensible of mankind count as the highest reason to live and die for.

This is what you claimed, to which I responded.

Quote:We did not all agree to this and you have once again failed to 'prove' anything, thanks for playing, I award you zero points.

Since I can include myself in 'we', and it was quite clear that Bucky Ball also disagreed with your assertion, then what I said was factually accurate. Case in point...

(10-09-2013 07:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one agreed on that. You tell yourself that because you are delusional. NOT ONE person agreed on that. That was what you kept saying, and NO ONE agreed. Show me where anyone agreed on that bullshit. You can't. Now go away.


But no, really, I'm sure it wasn't your intention to LIE about this, right? I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation about how you went from " I've proven Love exists and is the highest moral power for which most all sensible of mankind count as the highest reason to live and die for" to "... when in fact I proved in black and white that they all made up their own definitions of god and then didn't believe in them based on that criteria. I pointed out that if that is what god meant or gods meant then I too would be an atheist."


Go on, I'll wait... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-09-2013, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 03:07 PM by childeye.)
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 02:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 01:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  I still don't remember you being there. Did you have a different moniker?

You... do realize that's entirely beside the point, yes?

You cannot simultaneously in good faith:
Say another has no right to speak of something;
Say you have as much right to speak of something as another;
Proceed to speak on something you have no right to speak of.

For the conclusion of the first two statements is that your right to speak of a thing is the same as another's, which is to say - none. Not having a 'right' to speak of something, and doing so anyway, is hypocritical.

But, we know you're not too concerned with pesky things like logic.
The fact is, I never said nor implied that anyone had no right to speak about something. That is a spinning of the truth. I merely said that what they had to say had no credibility without any knowledge of what actually transpired. That is a factual statement. He obviously did not know what it is I claimed I had proven nor therefore did he see the proof of it assuming they are an honest person. I simply pointed out that all of the definitions of god that atheists had given were made up by themselves and then they didn't believe in god accordingly.

I also pointed out that they all did indeed believe that Love existed and it was the goodness in mankind, but they refused to count Love as God even though the bible clearly defined God as Love thousands of years ago. Why? Because they misunderstand what the term God implies, as that which sits politically at the Godhead. It is an absolute. Hence god can be money, evolution, science, atheism, whatever rules in one's reasoning to which one would count as the highest good and worth living and striving for. If it governs your beliefs , it governs your actions. Hence we have the term idols. To be clear, whatever you worship is your god because it rules in your reasoning defining such binary terms such as success, failure, rich, poor, wise and foolish, etc... All of this is self-evident to me.

There is a premise that is undeniable. We all share a planet and everyone's actions affect others. We all make moral, immoral, amoral decisions every day therefore. Whatever image of god you serve affects your moral character since it defines right and wrong, good and bad. To believe in One True God is to admit there is a moral truth that all men should submit to for everyone's well-being including each and every individual.

Now if you understand how I view God, put yourself in my shoes and see what atheism means to me. There is no right or wrong for men to submit to. Each and every man, particularly if he is a thief or murderer or rapist, is just doing what seems good to themselves because there is no God, no real right or wrong spirits, (emotions, things that animate our being and subsequent corresponding actions). No, says the atheist, such emotions are just chemical reactions in the brain according to science. Of course all things happening in the brain are neuro- chemical reactions or some form of bio- mechanics. But also we can see that what we believe to be true, at least partially dictates what emotions we will experience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  The fact is, I never said nor implied that anyone had no right to speak about something.
(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  You weren't even there, so you have no place to ... say anything about it.

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  That is a spinning of the truth. I merely said that what they had to say had no credibility without any knowledge of what actually transpired.
(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  You weren't even there, so you have no place to ... say anything about it.

If it's not what you meant, fair enough. It is, literally, what you said.

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  I simply pointed out that all of the definitions of god that atheists had given were made up by themselves and then they didn't believe in god accordingly.

Yes. All definitions are made up.

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  I also pointed out that they all did indeed believe that Love existed and it was the goodness in mankind, but they refused to count Love as God even though the bible clearly defined God as Love thousands of years ago.

Sure.

But the existence of God as a source of absolute morality is a claim utterly unrelated to the matter of scripture(s).

Why elevate the Bible? Because it says the one line that you happen to agree with? It says plenty I'm sure you disagree with, too.

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Why? Because they misunderstand what the term God implies, as that which sits politically at the Godhead. It is an absolute. Hence god can be money, evolution, science, atheism, whatever rules in one's reasoning to which one would count as the highest good and worth living and striving for. If it governs your beliefs , it governs your actions. Hence we have the term idols. To be clear, whatever you worship is your god because it rules in your reasoning defining such binary terms such as success, failure, rich, poor, wise and foolish, etc... All of this is self-evident to me.

Then that is meaningless. Calling things god means that god exists only insofar as the things do. It does not effect a greater understanding of the universe. It does not inform behaviour.

If you equate having opinions with believing in a god then yes, everyone does that. So what?

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  There is a premise that is undeniable. We all share a planet and everyone's actions affect others. We all make moral, immoral, amoral decisions every day therefore. Whatever image of god you serve affects your moral character since it defines right and wrong, good and bad. To believe in One True God is to admit there is a moral truth that all men should submit to for everyone's well-being including each and every individual.

Some people are moral relativists. I can suppose that they are simply incorrect. Some people are sociopaths. What of them?

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Now if you understand how I view God, put yourself in my shoes and see what atheism means to me. There is no right or wrong for men to submit to. Each and every man, particularly if he is a thief or murderer or rapist, is just doing what seems good to themselves because there is no God, no real right or wrong spirits, (emotions, things that animate our being and subsequent corresponding actions). No, says the atheist, such emotions are just chemical reactions in the brain according to science.

You acknowledge that other people have different definitions of god; you also believe that the 'atheist' definition of god is incorrect. You then interpret their disbelief (and actions) in terms of your definition of god, instead of theirs. Who's in whose shoes again?

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Of course all things happening in the brain are neuro- chemical reactions or some form of bio- mechanics. But also we can see that what we believe to be true, at least partially dictates what emotions we will experience.

Yes. And?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 09:33 PM by childeye.)
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 02:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  Well that explains your attitude at least. I never meant to imply you had no right to post your opinion. I seriously doubt you read the post that showed all the different definitions given to the term god or else you would not have claimed I proved nothing, when in fact I proved in black and white that they all made up their own definitions of god and then didn't believe in them based on that criteria. I pointed out that if that is what god meant or gods meant then I too would be an atheist.


What's this? You wouldn't be trying moving the goal post and weasel out of this, are you? Consider

(09-09-2013 10:11 PM)childeye Wrote:  Finally, what exactly do you expect me to prove to you? I've proven Love exists and is the highest moral power for which most all sensible of mankind count as the highest reason to live and die for.

This is what you claimed, to which I responded.

Quote:We did not all agree to this and you have once again failed to 'prove' anything, thanks for playing, I award you zero points.

Since I can include myself in 'we', and it was quite clear that Bucky Ball also disagreed with your assertion, then what I said was factually accurate. Case in point...

(10-09-2013 07:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one agreed on that. You tell yourself that because you are delusional. NOT ONE person agreed on that. That was what you kept saying, and NO ONE agreed. Show me where anyone agreed on that bullshit. You can't. Now go away.


Quote:But no, really, I'm sure it wasn't your intention to LIE about this, right? I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation about how you went from " I've proven Love exists and is the highest moral power for which most all sensible of mankind count as the highest reason to live and die for" to "... when in fact I proved in black and white that they all made up their own definitions of god and then didn't believe in them based on that criteria. I pointed out that if that is what god meant or gods meant then I too would be an atheist."


Go on, I'll wait... Drinking Beverage

Fair enough. First off, Bucky ball wanted proof. Please note I asked what he expected me to prove. I told him I had already proved that Love ruled as man's goodness. That was my offering, not his request. Please remember that at the time of the original thread I was being asked to prove that God is Love. A rather difficult thing to do when first we would all have to agree on what the term God meant so that Love could be applied. Therefore I was not only set out to show why I believed God was Love but explain what the term God meant to me and how it fitted with every written statement used containing the term. To do this, I asked for everyone's definitions of God. All differed, but basically they all meant superstition. Of course I could not prove superstition is Love. I then set out to show that God was a term representing an ultimate Truth. Of course this cannot be perceived in polytheism and the atheists I was conferring with just kept on applying the term gods and supernatural supreme beings, images too lofty to even comprehend.

So I returned to Love and posed questions that were meant to point out each and every one's need and dependency upon Love. I asked them if they would love me if I sacrificed myself so they would live. They all said yes they probably would. I told them that that was why I loved the spirit of Christ. That his act of love caused me to love. I would have to honestly say that those who were actively engaged all agreed in subtle nuanced responses that Love is indeed good and probably the most valued thing in life. At last I could show there was an ultimate Truth which all men could submit to. Instead I got arguments exploring the caveats such as ,"you're wrong, otherwise there would be no psychopathy", " What about all the evil things God does in the bible?", stuff like that.

We once again were getting off track. So I redirected by showing how words changed their meaning according to whether they followed Love or not and how not serving Love made one hypocritical. No one could deny that. But that didn't change Love into God since they didn't comprehend how God could mean anything other than a figment of one's imagination. So I showed them it was not fair that they all made up their own definitions of God so as to not believe while they wouldn't accept a perfectly logical definition given in scripture.

I hope that answers your question. By the way, Bucky Ball did admit that Love was probably of the highest value. That was in a different thread and that's as close to a common understanding of the term God we got.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 03:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If it's not what you meant, fair enough. It is, literally, what you said.
Misunderstanding because of semantics. No one's fault.

Quote:
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  I simply pointed out that all of the definitions of god that atheists had given were made up by themselves and then they didn't believe in god accordingly.

Yes. All definitions are made up.
Semantics again. Even the word definition is a made up word. It's when I apply my definition to a word that someone else was defining differently and then base my conclusions on my arbitrary change rather than on their use and intent, that it then becomes a misconstruing of what was actually being said. You can't denounce the God of scripture by using your own description of God which they were not using and remain objective.

Quote:
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  I also pointed out that they all did indeed believe that Love existed and it was the goodness in mankind, but they refused to count Love as God even though the bible clearly defined God as Love thousands of years ago.

Sure.

But the existence of God as a source of absolute morality is a claim utterly unrelated to the matter of scripture(s).

Why elevate the Bible? Because it says the one line that you happen to agree with? It says plenty I'm sure you disagree with, too.
To be objective I do not elevate the bible nor put it down. The fact it says God is Love scarcely only invites my attention to why it doesn't say it much more often. Nonetheless, that does not mean there are no reasons for that other than it's bullshit. How you can say God as a source of utter morality is a claim utterly unrelated to the matter of scripture is puzzling. It says this or at least implies it from the beginning to the end. Note in Genesis, that man is made in God's image.

Quote:
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Why? Because they misunderstand what the term God implies, as that which sits politically at the Godhead. It is an absolute. Hence god can be money, evolution, science, atheism, whatever rules in one's reasoning to which one would count as the highest good and worth living and striving for. If it governs your beliefs , it governs your actions. Hence we have the term idols. To be clear, whatever you worship is your god because it rules in your reasoning defining such binary terms such as success, failure, rich, poor, wise and foolish, etc... All of this is self-evident to me.

Then that is meaningless. Calling things god means that god exists only insofar as the things do. It does not effect a greater understanding of the universe. It does not inform behaviour.
It is ironic that you are saying exactly what scripture says about men's various images of god and gods. That they are false and just things. I would add they do not inform behavior they deform behavior. Greed for example can be seen as the worship of money.

Quote:If you equate having opinions with believing in a god then yes, everyone does that. So what?
It simply means that all men create an image of what they see as good bad or right and wrong. And in doing so they create an image of God or in other words seek to discern what God would have to say. Keep in mind, the term God here means ultimate Truth and each man's actions are governed by what he believes to be true.

For instance if a black man grows up in the inner city with little hope or any way to make a living, he may decide that stealing is justified because whoever set up the system has forced him to steal because he can find no job due to his color. Meanwhile the white people won't hire the black man because they know he keeps stealing. These are both self fulfilling spirals downward based on doubt rather than faith. We justify our moral actions based on what we believe to be true. I'm just trying to point out how I am applying the term god so that when I say, image of god, it is understood. In scripture, all men have an image of god whether they know it or not.

Quote:
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  There is a premise that is undeniable. We all share a planet and everyone's actions affect others. We all make moral, immoral, amoral decisions every day therefore. Whatever image of god you serve affects your moral character since it defines right and wrong, good and bad. To believe in One True God is to admit there is a moral truth that all men should submit to for everyone's well-being including each and every individual.

Some people are moral relativists. I can suppose that they are simply incorrect. Some people are sociopaths. What of them?
That's a complicated question. I'm not sure if you are asking why they exist as such, or whether they have any will to do otherwise. Actually I would love to talk to one and ask the right questions.

(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Now if you understand how I view God, put yourself in my shoes and see what atheism means to me. There is no right or wrong for men to submit to. Each and every man, particularly if he is a thief or murderer or rapist, is just doing what seems good to themselves because there is no God, no real right or wrong spirits, (emotions, things that animate our being and subsequent corresponding actions). No, says the atheist, such emotions are just chemical reactions in the brain according to science.

Quote:You acknowledge that other people have different definitions of god; you also believe that the 'atheist' definition of god is incorrect. You then interpret their disbelief (and actions) in terms of your definition of god, instead of theirs. Who's in whose shoes again?
No, I agree with the atheist in their unbelief since I don't believe in "their" definition of God also. The pitfalls due to semantics are numerous here. I don't like the "my definition" and "your definition" back and forth. I've studied scripture all my life with a sincere desire to understand what it is saying. I'm not interested in misunderstanding what the writer is saying. I take my understanding of what the term "God" implies according to how it is used. There it is used as an absolute. For example, to navigate the ocean you need three points. Where you are, where you wish to go, and one fixed position that they other two are relative to. God is seen as that fixed point in scripture.

Quote:
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Of course all things happening in the brain are neuro- chemical reactions or some form of bio- mechanics. But also we can see that what we believe to be true, at least partially dictates what emotions we will experience.

Yes. And?
And there is a difference between what we are and who we are. Science studies what we are while who we are is more metaphysical or philosophical. And also thanks for the forthright discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 05:18 PM by JAH.)
RE: The Unification of God
Paranoidsam, I was going to post here again but see it is fruitless. Let me give my most humble apologies to you about an excellent question being hijacked by idioteye, and frankly, by others who chose not to ignore him.

Oh and idioteye, I have a cattle prod which I would like to stuff so far up your ass it comes out your mouth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
11-09-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 02:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  Well that explains your attitude at least. I never meant to imply you had no right to post your opinion. I seriously doubt you read the post that showed all the different definitions given to the term god or else you would not have claimed I proved nothing, when in fact I proved in black and white that they all made up their own definitions of god and then didn't believe in them based on that criteria. I pointed out that if that is what god meant or gods meant then I too would be an atheist.

"Imply"?

(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  You weren't even there, so you have no place to stand and say anything about it.

That is not implied. That is stated plainly and outright.
What is the rush to hate me here? Nowhere do I say above "you have no right to post your opinion". Clearly I began with, "You weren't even there so" which is the qualifier of "why" he has no "place to stand" and say anything. The statement is clearly referring to his credibility, not his right to post an opinion. Sheesh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 05:15 PM)JAH Wrote:  Paranoidsam, I was going to post here again but see it is fruitless. Let me give my most humble apologies to you about an excellent question being hijacked by idioteye, and frankly, by others who chose not to ignore him.

Oh and idioteye, I have a cattle prod which I would like to stuff so far up your ass it comes out your mouth.
Make up your mind, do you wish to ignore me or sodomize me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 05:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 05:15 PM)JAH Wrote:  Paranoidsam, I was going to post here again but see it is fruitless. Let me give my most humble apologies to you about an excellent question being hijacked by idioteye, and frankly, by others who chose not to ignore him.

Oh and idioteye, I have a cattle prod which I would like to stuff so far up your ass it comes out your mouth.
Make up your mind, do you wish to ignore me or sodomize me?

Don't think those are necessarily mutually exclusive. ... if memory serves.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: