[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No offense, but that vid SUCKED, entirely.
Maybe God created us to take care of that crap, or to not allow it to happen in the first place.
There is the theory that we need the crap, as a necessity, to see contrast (good-evil), to choose and create the ‘good’.[/quote]
You speak gibberish, what are you talking about?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
Oh how I love people that think a statement is all that is needed in an ARGUMENT. Give you a definition of argument just encase you forgot.
MADE OF PREMISES WITH ONE PREMISE AS THE CONCLUSION, AND THE OTHER PREMISES AS THE LOGICAL PROOF TO PROVE THE CONCLUSION LOGICALLY CORRECT. [/quote]
WOW. I had no intention of getting into an ARGUMENT with anyone. I come in peace, Brother Chris.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
Oh how I love people that think a statement is all that is needed in an ARGUMENT. Give you a definition of argument just encase you forgot.
MADE OF PREMISES WITH ONE PREMISE AS THE CONCLUSION, AND THE OTHER PREMISES AS THE LOGICAL PROOF TO PROVE THE CONCLUSION LOGICALLY CORRECT. [/quote]
WOW. I had no intention of getting into an ARGUMENT with anyone. I come in peace, Brother Chris.[/quote]
Well, that is what a debate is made of arguments. Make one.
Well, the words ARGUE and DEBATE imply contentiousness or opposing sides. If you review my previous posts, you’ll see that I’ve already presented my general…position. I’m not disagreeing with your views or beliefs, and certainly not your right to have them. It is OK, for you.
Personally, I wouldn’t have them for myself. Primarily because it seems to suppose a God that favors a specific religion over others. The ONE, the ONLY, the RIGHT religion. I believe that the very act of pushing and defending the so-called RIGHT religion has, more that any other issue, caused more of the world’s so-called evil (wars death disrespect bigotry etc) than anything else in the history of mankind.
One of the fundamental reasons I don’t believe in one, ‘right’ religion for everyone is because I believe in a vaster, more encompassing God. As the loving parent of all mankind and more, everyone is nurtured, guided, sustained “where they are”. Different religions are like different languages or dialects. It’s a small view of God indeed to think God only operates through ‘one, single, right path’. Of course, anyone has the right to believe that if they choose to, and I would support their choice.
hmmmm . . . moral equivalency of all religious beliefs because God is so much more than we can comprehend . . . not a strong argument - but if that is your base belief system, then that explains your earlier comment
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
It’s just part of the definition dude. And I still like it. It’s simple and I believe, mostly accurate. [/quote]
I haven’t been able to find a definition of “belief” that contains the phrase “nothing more, nothing less”. Can you point me to it please? If there is a definition of belief that does contain that phrase, wouldn’t it be, by default, THE definition, and not just “a” definition since it is by definition, “nothing more, nothing less”?
Or was “nothing more, nothing less” actually something YOU added? If so, then it most certainly is YOUR definition, which we were told other wise in your previous reply to me.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
hmmmm . . . moral equivalency of all religious beliefs because God is so much more than we can comprehend . . . not a strong argument - but if that is your base belief system, then that explains your earlier comment[/quote]
I’m not sure I would go so far to say ‘moral equivalency’ of all religions.
The Taliban is not morally equivalent to the Presbies, for example, IMO.
But I do believe one God is working Its way through all religions.
Either you believe God is omnipresent or you don’t.
Let’s just say (for discussion purposes) that God is impersonal and non-judgemental.
Then, let’s say (again for discussion) that God works through everyone’s own belief system, since Its omnipresent, and since according to ones faith (belief) it is done for them.
Of course, one can choose to believe in a ‘personal’ God, angels and saints and such. Thats very nice.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
It’s just part of the definition dude. And I still like it. It’s simple and I believe, mostly accurate. [/quote]
I haven’t been able to find a definition of “belief” that contains the phrase “nothing more, nothing less”. Can you point me to it please? If there is a definition of belief that does contain that phrase, wouldn’t it be, by default, THE definition, and not just “a” definition since it is by definition, “nothing more, nothing less”?
Or was “nothing more, nothing less” actually something YOU added? If so, then it most certainly is YOUR definition, which we were told other wise in your previous reply to me.
[/quote]
You are very funny.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Well, the words ARGUE and DEBATE imply contentiousness or opposing sides. If you review my previous posts, you’ll see that I’ve already presented my general…position. I’m not disagreeing with your views or beliefs, and certainly not your right to have them. It is OK, for you.
Personally, I wouldn’t have them for myself. Primarily because it seems to suppose a God that favors a specific religion over others. The ONE, the ONLY, the RIGHT religion. I believe that the very act of pushing and defending the so-called RIGHT religion has, more that any other issue, caused more of the world’s so-called evil (wars death disrespect bigotry etc) than anything else in the history of mankind.
One of the fundamental reasons I don’t believe in one, ‘right’ religion for everyone is because I believe in a vaster, more encompassing God. As the loving parent of all mankind and more, everyone is nurtured, guided, sustained “where they are”. Different religions are like different languages or dialects. It’s a small view of God indeed to think God only operates through ‘one, single, right path’. Of course, anyone has the right to believe that if they choose to, and I would support their choice.
[/quote]
…I’m going to say you are wrong.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Well, the words ARGUE and DEBATE imply contentiousness or opposing sides. If you review my previous posts, you’ll see that I’ve already presented my general…position. I’m not disagreeing with your views or beliefs, and certainly not your right to have them. It is OK, for you.
Personally, I wouldn’t have them for myself. Primarily because it seems to suppose a God that favors a specific religion over others. The ONE, the ONLY, the RIGHT religion. I believe that the very act of pushing and defending the so-called RIGHT religion has, more that any other issue, caused more of the world’s so-called evil (wars death disrespect bigotry etc) than anything else in the history of mankind.
One of the fundamental reasons I don’t believe in one, ‘right’ religion for everyone is because I believe in a vaster, more encompassing God. As the loving parent of all mankind and more, everyone is nurtured, guided, sustained “where they are”. Different religions are like different languages or dialects. It’s a small view of God indeed to think God only operates through ‘one, single, right path’. Of course, anyone has the right to believe that if they choose to, and I would support their choice.
[/quote]
…I’m going to say you are wrong.[/quote]
It may be a ‘wrong’ view to YOU at this time, and that’s OK.
Just out of curiousity, what part is wrong to you? God’s omnipotence or omnipresence?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
It’s just part of the definition dude. And I still like it. It’s simple and I believe, mostly accurate. [/quote]
I haven’t been able to find a definition of “belief” that contains the phrase “nothing more, nothing less”. Can you point me to it please? If there is a definition of belief that does contain that phrase, wouldn’t it be, by default, THE definition, and not just “a” definition since it is by definition, “nothing more, nothing less”?
Or was “nothing more, nothing less” actually something YOU added? If so, then it most certainly is YOUR definition, which we were told other wise in your previous reply to me.
[/quote]
You are very funny.[/quote]
Indeed, but not as funny as your definition of belief.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Well, the words ARGUE and DEBATE imply contentiousness or opposing sides. If you review my previous posts, you’ll see that I’ve already presented my general…position. I’m not disagreeing with your views or beliefs, and certainly not your right to have them. It is OK, for you.
Personally, I wouldn’t have them for myself. Primarily because it seems to suppose a God that favors a specific religion over others. The ONE, the ONLY, the RIGHT religion. I believe that the very act of pushing and defending the so-called RIGHT religion has, more that any other issue, caused more of the world’s so-called evil (wars death disrespect bigotry etc) than anything else in the history of mankind.
One of the fundamental reasons I don’t believe in one, ‘right’ religion for everyone is because I believe in a vaster, more encompassing God. As the loving parent of all mankind and more, everyone is nurtured, guided, sustained “where they are”. Different religions are like different languages or dialects. It’s a small view of God indeed to think God only operates through ‘one, single, right path’. Of course, anyone has the right to believe that if they choose to, and I would support their choice.
[/quote]
…I’m going to say you are wrong.[/quote]
It may be a ‘wrong’ view to YOU at this time, and that’s OK.
Just out of curiousity, what part is wrong to you? God’s omnipotence or omnipresence?[/quote]
Neither, however your statement about all religions is wrong. And it is not my view.
OK
So if you agree that God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, then by definition, there is nothing else (including any religion) where God is not. There is no absence of God.
Conversely, if God is not Omnipresent and Omnipotent, there there would be plenty of places where God is not…including religion.
Which is it?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
OK
So if you agree that God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, then by definition, there is nothing else (including any religion) where God is not. There is no absence of God.
Conversely, if God is not Omnipresent and Omnipotent, there there would be plenty of places where God is not…including religion.
Which is it?[/quote]
I see what you did there. However, that is a heresy. The common name slips my mind at the moment.
Just because God is everywhere, does not mean that everything is for God, there are things that are clearly against God and His will. Like the Devil. There is absence of God, evil is the direct absence of God. God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, however humans have freewill, and if they freely choose to live in evil, then they freely choose to push God away. This does not mean He is not Omnipresent or potent.
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloeâ??s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, â??I belong to Paul,â?? or â??I belong to Apollos,â?? or â??I belong to Peter,â?? or â??I belong to Christ.â?? Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?â??
I provide this for evidence that the Catholic Church is the true Church. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloeâ??s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, â??I belong to Paul,â?? or â??I belong to Apollos,â?? or â??I belong to Peter,â?? or â??I belong to Christ.â?? Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?â??
I provide this for evidence that the Catholic Church is the true Church. ;)[/quote]
And the LDS folks and JW’s (and numerous others) claim it as evidence that theirs is. I claim it as the same type of ideal goal as the many scriptural calls not to sin. Totally valid commands that will not be perfectly realized until he returns. Also this is a specific schism caused by falsely exalting men like Rome does.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe�¢??s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, �¢??I belong to Paul,�¢?? or �¢??I belong to Apollos,�¢?? or �¢??I belong to Peter,�¢?? or �¢??I belong to Christ.�¢?? Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?�¢??
I provide this for evidence that the Catholic Church is the true Church. ;)[/quote]
And the LDS folks and JW’s (and numerous others) claim it as evidence that theirs is. I claim it as the same type of ideal goal as the many scriptural calls not to sin. Totally valid commands that will not be perfectly realized until he returns. Also this is a specific schism caused by falsely exalting men like Rome does.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think that is the case because Rome always does things through Christ. None of her powers or deeds are anything but through or in Christ.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
OK
So if you agree that God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, then by definition, there is nothing else (including any religion) where God is not. There is no absence of God.
Conversely, if God is not Omnipresent and Omnipotent, there there would be plenty of places where God is not…including religion.
Which is it?[/quote]
I see what you did there. However, that is a heresy. The common name slips my mind at the moment.
Just because God is everywhere, does not mean that everything is for God, there are things that are clearly against God and His will. Like the Devil. There is absence of God, evil is the direct absence of God. God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, however humans have freewill, and if they freely choose to live in evil, then they freely choose to push God away. This does not mean He is not Omnipresent or potent.[/quote]
…
Brother Chris,
I don’t know how to do manage the quote function very well, so I put my comments is brackets-CAPS. I am not shouting:)
I see what you did there. However, that is a heresy. The common name slips my mind at the moment. [WHICH STATEMENT IS HERESY?]
Just because God is everywhere, does not mean that everything is for God, [GOD IS DIVIDED?]
there are things that are clearly against God and His will. [GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT?]
Like the Devil. There is absence of God, evil is the direct absence of God. [GOD IS NOT OMNIPRESENT?]
God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, [NOW GOD IS OK-WHEW]
however humans have freewill, and if they freely choose to live in evil [BEING OMNISCEINT-DOES GOD SEE THIS EVIL? IF GOD IS OMNIPRESENT/OMNIPOTENT, GOD ONLY SEES HIMSELF],
then they freely choose to push God away. [HOW CAN ANYONE PUSH AWAY SOMETHING THAT IS OMNIPRSENT?]
This does not mean He is not Omnipresent or potent.[/quote]
[SEEMING PARADOXES are not easy, and I guess it depends upon where you stand - with God or with division]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe�?�¢??s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, �?�¢??I belong to Paul,�?�¢?? or �?�¢??I belong to Apollos,�?�¢?? or �?�¢??I belong to Peter,�?�¢?? or �?�¢??I belong to Christ.�?�¢?? Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?�?�¢??
I provide this for evidence that the Catholic Church is the true Church. ;)[/quote]
And the LDS folks and JW’s (and numerous others) claim it as evidence that theirs is. I claim it as the same type of ideal goal as the many scriptural calls not to sin. Totally valid commands that will not be perfectly realized until he returns. Also this is a specific schism caused by falsely exalting men like Rome does.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think that is the case because Rome always does things through Christ. None of her powers or deeds are anything but through or in Christ.[/quote]Lemme make clear that I’m not putting Rome in quite the same category as the Mormons or JW’s. I do believe in the end you worship the one true God of the bible which is rather important =] Of course I don’t buy their claims of being the one true church either (though the JW’s will shoot themselves before using the word “church”) or in their case, of having anything to do with the gospel of Christ at all. However they will say they do everything through Christ too though the LDS church has plenty of their own extra biblical “revelation” like Rome does.
Sola Scriptura for me thanks. You can put Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, CMA, and dozens of other orthodox denominations in a room and they will disagree on some stuff, but will all pray together and call each other brethren because they arrive at the same conclusions on the very essentials because the bible is unmistakably clear on those.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
OK
So if you agree that God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, then by definition, there is nothing else (including any religion) where God is not. There is no absence of God.
Conversely, if God is not Omnipresent and Omnipotent, there there would be plenty of places where God is not…including religion.
Which is it?[/quote]
I see what you did there. However, that is a heresy. The common name slips my mind at the moment.
Just because God is everywhere, does not mean that everything is for God, there are things that are clearly against God and His will. Like the Devil. There is absence of God, evil is the direct absence of God. God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, however humans have freewill, and if they freely choose to live in evil, then they freely choose to push God away. This does not mean He is not Omnipresent or potent.[/quote]
…
Brother Chris,
I don’t know how to do manage the quote function very well, so I put my comments is brackets-CAPS. I am not shouting:)
I see what you did there. However, that is a heresy. The common name slips my mind at the moment. [WHICH STATEMENT IS HERESY?]
[/quote]
Relativism
No, God is not divided.
God is Omnipotent.
God is omnipresent.
How does God being Omnipresent and potent make it so God can only see himself?
In the figurative sense, maybe CHOOSING TO NOT LIVE IN HIM, would be a better phrase for you, no?
I think you need to go back and learn what omnipresent and omnipotent means before we talk again, because you use is more than a little off.