| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:54:32 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,071 |
Speculation on this point (what god really really reallly wants vs. what
is happening") is not profitable, because it will be tinted with the fallibility of those engaging in it.
(A sleep in which, I think you are aware of nothing but your own sins.)
Using the systemically designed corrupt human justice system which
designed to be corrupt to draw an analogy to God's justice is circular
and only serves establishing normalising the iniquity and propseperity
of Satan's existing courts, which will only thrive on a system of false witness and scapegoats (despite the facts about the blood of Jesus which
is to set us free from this), a system of commisions and omissions, to
thwart what is stated to be god's intention "by no means clearing the
guilty" and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment.
I would imagine there would be no embarrassment, just an eagerness to apologise for an atrocious wrong.
For once I have no reply, the analogy with our own court system is a
good one
But which causes me to suspect the Lord's Prayer which states "as it is
in heaven", given that there is documentaion of rebellion and unresolved
war in heaven.
And I think that's the crux of the matter. If my understanding of the
bible is correct, man can't come to God without the prompting of the
Spirit, and you can't be saved without allowing the same Spirit to dwell within.
On a human level that would certainly be true. i guess someone going to church and doing all the "right" stuff may eventually come to a period
of enlightenment, but I don't think someone who already knows what being
a Christian entails could go through the whole goody goody stuff in
their own strength, without that indwelling.
On 08/07/2025 21:54, David Dalton wrote:
If you have no definition for your God then there is no match.
God defines Himself in His word.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
1. one that you specify yourself, as I do,
On 10/07/2025 03:44, David Dalton wrote:
1. one that you specify yourself, as I do,
Which is about as sensible as declaring that you have a self-definition
of a great white shark - it's gold in colour, about two inches long and
is usually found in home acquaria. Fat lot of good your definition is
going to do you when you go swimming off Cape Town.
That, of course, is an extreme example. Your "definition" of God is
closer to reality than my depiction of your definition of a shark, nonetheless your definition is lacking in several areas - but the main
point is that God exists quite apart from your definition and being
mistaken about Him can be quite as disastrous as mistaking sharks for goldfish.
On 09/07/2025 09:58, Madhu wrote:
(A sleep in which, I think you are aware of nothing but your own sins.)A sleep in which you are aware of nothing. Full stop.
You cannot prove God exists
I cannot prove he doesn't.
That's because you are obliged to reject Indian Philosophy's
contributions to the mind body problem, and are constrained to work
within the Western Philosopical Framework (which in turn is limited in
order to uphold a "Western Evangelical Banking" worldview.)
Is there any other biblical objection (other than Eccl.)
I cannot spot any objection to viewing the muslim conception of "torment
in the grave" as being aware of one sins. If any form of "identity"
survives death, it could includes the sins with which one is resurrected
to face judgment.
On 10/07/2025 11:24, Madhu wrote:
That's because you are obliged to reject Indian Philosophy's
contributions to the mind body problem, and are constrained to work
within the Western Philosopical Framework (which in turn is limited in
order to uphold a "Western Evangelical Banking" worldview.)
Actually, given that most westerners have some vague idea that as soon
as you die you go to heaven, I think I am justified in saying that I
am *not* constrained as you describe.
Is there any other biblical objection (other than Eccl.)Yes, Job mentions our state in death several times, the Psalms and
Isaiah contribute further information, and the New Testament with its emphasis on a) sleep and b) resurrection, agrees with the Old
Testament.
On Jul 9, 2025, Kendall K. Down wrote
(in article <104kqfq$1qsq$1@dont-email.me>):
On 08/07/2025 21:54, David Dalton wrote:
If you have no definition for your God then there is no match.
God defines Himself in His word.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Anyone who uses the name God has to know what it means.
Else they open themselves to name-grabbing entities.
You may assume that the most powerful someone will grab
the name, but that is not assured.
There are several types of definition of God:
1. one that you specify yourself, as I do,
2. a dictionary definition,
3. an organizational definition, such as the Catholic Nicene Creed, definition of God as Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth,
4. a scriptural definition, e.g. Creator in Genesis,
5. a historical definition, e.g.. the God of Abraham.
But it is possible to over-define God, for example to say He
is the ruler of the region all/everything, and is also the
father of Jesus, and is also the one who was incarnated
as Jesus. I donrCOt believe those last two qualifications
are true
"in that sleep what dreams may come" is still left open.
as that author
points out the state is is not observable and therefore not "knowable"
in a fundamental sense. The other allusions in scripture are still mans
best thinking dealing with death, and not enough to establish the
doctrine beyond doubt.
On 11/07/2025 03:29, Madhu wrote:
"in that sleep what dreams may come" is still left open.
Is that supposed to be a quote from the book of Job? It doesn't appear
in any version that I have on the computer.
Job specifically says that the dead do not return to their former
dwellings and are ignorant of what happens to their descendants.
it's from 'amlet. (I only remember it because we had to memorise the
passage for some elocution, contest that I never entered, it ends with
"get thee to a nunnery")
Of course. The only point I posed here is that if some aspect of the
self survives death, would it would have to have a component of self-awareness (the "I"). Indian theorists often give the example of
the 3rd state of awareness, that of deep-sleep (in which there is no
apparent selfawareness), and then posit a 4th transcendtal state.
My thinking here was that if the self is annihilated there is no chance
of continuation in resurrection - as the identity of the self is tied to I-sense. so when the soul sleeps if it is aware of anything it is aware
only of itself, and consequently the the sins (in an inchoate way) which
will be dealt with on resurrection. I'm not sure this is unbiblical
(when untied from the material mind-body world view)
As both you and I have a Christian background, I presume that your "definition" of God will be very similar to mine, because both come from
the same source - not our imaginations, but the Bible.
Two observations come to mind.-a One is of those who have near death experiences and talk of a bright light which they are drawn towards,
where they see their loved ones. Then for whatever reason its not their
time and sent back.
I've also read stories of tots pointing to a
grandparents grave and waving, as if the child can see the grandparent.
Samuel was summmoned from the dead by the witch of Endor.-a I know you dismiss this as not being Samuel but a literal reading of 1 Samuel 28 suggests otherwise.
On 12/07/2025 13:06, John wrote:
Samuel was summmoned from the dead by the witch of Endor.-a I know you
dismiss this as not being Samuel but a literal reading of 1 Samuel 28
suggests otherwise.
"The dead know not anything"
"He shall return to his house no more"
"His sons come to honour and he knoweth it not"
"The dead praise not the Lord"
These very clear statements tell me that we need to seek another
explanation for what went on in Endor. Samuel was remarkably articulate
and well-informed for some who "know not anything", don't you think?
Ecclesiastes 9:5 but I'm surprised yoou quoted it as you don't believe
it, unless you're doing a Jeff and only quoting part of it.
To conclude:
"they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten."
I think this relates to physical death, and remember this is a tale of
woe from Job, and written from his human perspective.-a The end says he
who goes down to Sheol doesn't come back up, so no final resurrection then?
Job again, and he writes as if that is the end, man is gone, finito.
Again written from a human prospective.
But contend that last quote with Revelation 6:9-11.
I had a very good friend who died 7 years ago. I'm sceptical by nature
but after he died we had a couple of minor incidents at home. A radio
turned on by and a lamp came on by itself, as if he had visited us to
say goodbye.-a Possibly coincidental but I've heard of similar things happening.
On 10/07/2025 03:44, David Dalton wrote:
1. one that you specify yourself, as I do,
Which is about as sensible as declaring that you have a self-definition
of a great white shark - it's gold in colour, about two inches long and
is usually found in home acquaria. Fat lot of good your definition is
going to do you when you go swimming off Cape Town.
That, of course, is an extreme example. Your "definition" of God is
closer to reality than my depiction of your definition of a shark, nonetheless your definition is lacking in several areas - but the main
point is that God exists quite apart from your definition and being
mistaken about Him can be quite as disastrous as mistaking sharks for goldfish.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 14/07/2025 06:27, David Dalton wrote:
Dp you agree that your God is the ruler of the region all/everything?
If so, then your God is the same as my God.
There may be one element of agreement - probably two, if you'll agree
that God is part of the spiritual world rather than the physical - but
big deal. There are other highly significant aspects on which you
disagree with traditional Christian teaching and which mean that this imaginary god you claim to worship is not at all the same as the
Christian God.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I specify nothing about my God other than that He is
the ruler of the region all/everything.
On 15/07/2025 04:56, David Dalton wrote:
I specify nothing about my God other than that He is
the ruler of the region all/everything.
That is not so. For example, in your post on 10/7 you stated that you
don't believe that God is the father of Jesus - ie. that you believe He
is *not* the father of Jesus.
Is the God you worship the same God that Muslims worship (even if theyI presume the question is addressed to me. My answer would be "Yes",
don't fully understand God in the way Christians do)?
On 15/07/2025 10:45, John wrote:
Is the God you worship the same God that Muslims worship (even if theyI presume the question is addressed to me. My answer would be "Yes",
don't fully understand God in the way Christians do)?
because they identify Allah as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". As
you say, their understanding of Allah is deficient, though possibly more
in accord with the Old Testament understanding.
However, like both Jews and Christians, Muslims do not attempt to define God. They accept God as He has revealed Himself to them in the Qur'an
(as they believe) and to a lesser extent in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (which they believe have been corrupted).
You said that David's God wasn't the same as your God because he didn't believe he was the father of Jesus.-a Muslims also believe Allah isn't Jesus's father, so why do you accept the Muslim God but not David's?
On 16/07/2025 10:31, John wrote:
You said that David's God wasn't the same as your God because he
didn't believe he was the father of Jesus.-a Muslims also believe Allah
isn't Jesus's father, so why do you accept the Muslim God but not
David's?
You need to read more carefully.
I objected to David's claim to "define God", pointing out that God
exists independant of our definitions.
He then said that his only definition for God was that He was ruler of
all, to which I pointed out that he had also denied that God was the
Father of Jesus, so his definition was broader than what he claimed.
You have conflated the two in your first sentence.
I gave my reasons for accepting that Muslims and I worship the same God:
1. Muslims identify Allah as the God of Abraham
2. Muslims depend upon revelation for what they say about God - in other words, they don't just make up stuff and claim that they have invented
and defined a god which they will now worship.
I would agree to an extent, but you would claim that your definition of
God comes from the bible. Without that, how would you define God?
If David believes God is ruler of all, surely that includes Abraham?
So you believe that the God revealed to Muslims via Mohammad was in fact
a correct revelation?
I would also say that David's understanding of God is also byI'll let David answer that.
revelation, even if you personally believe that revelation to be false.
On 19/07/2025 12:47, John wrote:
I would agree to an extent, but you would claim that your definition of
God comes from the bible. Without that, how would you define God?
Without the Bible I wouldn't even know about God, let alone know about
His self-definition.
If David believes God is ruler of all, surely that includes Abraham?
That depends on whether he believes that Abraham really existed.
So you believe that the God revealed to Muslims via Mohammad was in fact
a correct revelation?
No, and in fact I do not believe Mohammad was a prophet. He produced a mishmash of half-understood ideas from Jewish and Christian sources, so
if he happens to say anything true about God, it is derived from God's self-revelation to those sources.
I would also say that David's understanding of God is also by
revelation, even if you personally believe that revelation to be false.
I'll let David answer that.
On 19/07/2025 12:47, John wrote:
I would agree to an extent, but you would claim that your definition
of God comes from the bible. Without that, how would you define God?
Without the Bible I wouldn't even know about God, let alone know about
His self-definition.
If David believes God is ruler of all, surely that includes Abraham?
That depends on whether he believes that Abraham really existed.
So you believe that the God revealed to Muslims via Mohammad was in
fact a correct revelation?
No, and in fact I do not believe Mohammad was a prophet. He produced a mishmash of half-understood ideas from Jewish and Christian sources, so
if he happens to say anything true about God, it is derived from God's self-revelation to those sources.
On Jul 19, 2025, Kendall K. Down wrote
(in article <105gogd$2ss4u$4@dont-email.me>):
On 19/07/2025 12:47, John wrote:
I would agree to an extent, but you would claim that your definition of
God comes from the bible. Without that, how would you define God?
Without the Bible I wouldn't even know about God, let alone know about
His self-definition.
If David believes God is ruler of all, surely that includes Abraham?
That depends on whether he believes that Abraham really existed.
So you believe that the God revealed to Muslims via Mohammad was in fact >>> a correct revelation?
No, and in fact I do not believe Mohammad was a prophet. He produced a
mishmash of half-understood ideas from Jewish and Christian sources, so
if he happens to say anything true about God, it is derived from God's
self-revelation to those sources.
I would also say that David's understanding of God is also by
revelation, even if you personally believe that revelation to be false.
I'll let David answer that.
Yes, I think I have been inspired to the definition and would
be corrected somehow if it was wrong. For some
time I believed that all/everything is a someone, and
if so, since it rules itself, God would be the someone ALL.
That would be in line with the belief of some Wiccans
that their Goddess and Horned God are male an female
aspects of ALL or The All. But I no longer believe
that God is ALL, but that God is a subset of ALL.
(Anything that exists must be ALL or a subset of ALL.)
And I while I say that I do not believe that God is the
lowercase f father of Jesus, I donrCOt say that I believe
that God is not the lowercase f father of Jesus. :-)
I actually use the name Goddess for my Deity, but
have been using the name God on this group.
Again I define Goddess as the ruler of the region all/everything,
who many call God.
I think Goddess is not the lowercase f father of Jesus,
but I could be wrong, so I donrCOt include that as part
of my definition.
I also think that Goddess created that which most modern
cosmologists began with the Big Bang, which I think is
a subset of all/everything, and which some would call
the universe, whereas others define the universe as all/everything.
But I do not include Creator as part of my definition. However
it is part of the Catholic organizational definition given at the start
of the Nicene Creed (Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth).
I also do not believe Goddess is anthropomorphic, which
is in line with the Muslim definition of their Allah. But
what about gender? I think that Goddess has all
eight sexual harmonics:
straight-type-1-M/straight-type-1-F/gay/lesbian/ bim/bif/straight-type-2-M/straight-type-2-F
and hence is compatible with everyone and can be
identified with by everyone. However I do not include
that as part of my definition. And I could spell
the name God/dess but choose to use the name
Goddess to balance long patriarchy.
Anyway, those are some late night/early morning musings.
So when you said, and I quote, "Muslims depend upon revelation for whatNo, but as he drew upon Christian and Jewish sources, his statements
they say about God - in other words, they don't just make up stuff and
claim that they have invented and defined a god which they will now
worship" you didn't actually believe these were revealed to Mohammad.
Interesting musings.-a Whilst Judaism/Christianity/Islam consider God to
be a male entity, the bible defines God as a Spirit, so imo God is
neither male or female, but in a sense encompasses both/all.
To all
intents and purposes though I would define God as "he" rather than "she"
or "it".
I actually use the name Goddess for my Deity, but
have been using the name God on this group.
On 21/07/2025 11:37, John wrote:
Interesting musings.-a Whilst Judaism/Christianity/Islam consider God
to be a male entity, the bible defines God as a Spirit, so imo God is
neither male or female, but in a sense encompasses both/all.
I agree - so far as we know anything about God.
To all intents and purposes though I would define God as "he" rather
than "she" or "it".
God has self-revealed as "he", but whether that is because of a
preference for the male sex or simply to cater to the prejudices of readers/listeners, I do not know.
Given that worship of a goddess tended to be orgiastic, that would be
reason enough for God to eschew any identification as female.
Orgiastic? Where do I sign up..........only joking.
I've never considered a Godess to be anything sexual, but then I don'tAbsolutely (though I don't recall any comments about jewellery in 1 or 2 Corinthians). The temple of Astarte up on the Acro-Corinth was claimed
know any Goddesses.-a I believe the Corinthians came from that sort of background, which may well be why Paul was specific about headwear and adorning jewellery etc