Ask Me Help Desk - What it means to believe God

Quote:

I am not quoted or saying anything in #35. Those quotes are NOT from me!

The Quotes Don't have to be from you.

I, in effect might be saying that the Bible is our focal point- You, (so it appears) are trying to separate Jesus from the Bible...because the Bible is not the Original manuscript (fallible, corrupted, etc.).

#35 is your entire theme in this thread.
#36 expresses' that.

Your trying to tell me that "we" don't have the Original manuscripts- there is no "We"... it is "you" that doesn't have...

Just as there is no, we, us, you in Jesus...it is only Jesus. it is all Jesus. So where does the Bible come in, if it is all just Jesus (you might ask)? Jesus is the Word of God. The Word was with God. The Word is GOD!
What will prevail? The Word of God or the word of Man? WORD!

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

The existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

FINALLY! IF I COULD PUT THIS IN RED CAPITAL LETTERS, I WOULD DO JUST THAT. Why did it take you so long?

Let me repeat your words quoted above - "The existence of God cannot be demonstrated."

That is precisely what I posted to start all this. You and others here continually failed to acknowledge the truth of that statement. You constantly went off on what you believe instead of replying to that simple statement. Away for a few days, I return last night and find a smarmy comment from you about my needing two Bibles on my journey. And you have the nerve to criticize others on their language.

You have been exposed, Waldo. Now tell us again how humble you are and how you are learning, blah, blah, blah.

Ah, Glad to see you my friend. I knew when I posted that, that it would open up a new can of worms.

Lets put it in its proper context.

God, is not in the world; the world is in him. The existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

This is going to have to be fast, for right now. Give you something to contemplate.

God, is not in the world (Jesus is); the world is in him (Jesus created the world). The existence of God cannot be demonstrated (lets not forget the man Jesus...Gods Son). For a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object (Jesus/man) in the field of human vision.

Then of course we can get into the whole Jesus/God thing. Some might not see Jesus, as being 100% Man.

Have to run. Bye, for now.

P.S.

Quote:

smarmy comment

I deleted that this morning. I tried(couldn't log on) to delete it a few minutes after I wrote it...I was trying to be funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

I knew when I posted that, that it would open up a new can of worms.

You didn't know anything of the sort. You're backtracking to not look stupid. You failed.

Quote:

Lets put it in its proper context.

Yeah, let's. Except there is no proper context. Can you read? Understand plain language? You just repeated what you already wrote. You do this all the time. Remember the definition of insanity?

Quote:

God, is not in the world; the world is in him. The existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

I'm glad you got at least this one thing right! You won't admit you got it from me leading you to what should have been obvious, but you did, didn't you? Let's see how truthful you can be.

Quote:

Then of course we can get into the whole Jesus/God thing.

You are free to get into whatever you so please. You start a thread, others respond. That's how it works.

I say, I say...Simmer down, just simmer down there.

Quote:

God is non denominational. Religion is the construct of men. Humans are imperfect but they are trying their best...some of them at least.

My Statement was Directed at Tal. Which I perceived as an Atheist.

Context:
The criticism made by atheists that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Quote:

You won't admit you got it from me leading you to what should have been obvious, but you did, didn't you? Let's see how truthful you can be.

Yes, I did get it from you. I knew exactly what you have been saying. In fact, when I made the statement (after all, I posted it, not you) I had a feeling you might drop in...Truth be told! And here you are...How does a Christian develop an Atheistic point of view as Truth???

This was my quick response.

Quote:

God, is not in the world (Jesus is); the world is in him (Jesus created the world). The existence of God cannot be demonstrated (lets not forget the man Jesus...God's Son). For a God whose existence could be demonstrated (Jesus) wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object (Jesus/man/God) in the field of human vision.

Any deity’s existence cannot be objectively proven from man-made schemes of thought and observation.

Difference being Jesus. Jesus being 100% man. Jesus being 100% God. Jesus being 100% Word. For some, Tis hard trying to wrap your mind around.

Point being:
Jesus is not, just another Object...

Jesus is the closest we will ever come to knowing, loving, touching the living God...Did I mention the Word?
I need Faith (where Bible, Jesus comes in)…Better yet, I need Jesus (where the Bible comes in). Even better, I need GOD (where Jesus, Bible, Faith and all of Creation come in to view).

Quote:

You're backtracking to not look stupid. You failed.

Yah, that ship has already sailed. No need for me to backtrack...ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

Jesus is the closest we will ever come to knowing, loving, touching the living God...

Are you a Trinitarian? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons in one God?

Quote:

Are you a Trinitarian? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons in one God?

That's what you Got out of all this?

Are you trying to take something away from the fact that God is 100% Man? Exact same Flesh as you and I???

I don't know why you repeated this post. Nervous?

Quote:

My Statement was Directed at Tal. Which I perceived as an Atheist.

Your perception is abysmal. I've never seen Tal to express atheism. You make wild statements like this frequently. You lose credibility when you do because it reflects on your poor reading comprehension.

Quote:

that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all

If you're referring to the topic here, it was never intended as a criticism. That was very obvious. But you missed it. It was intended to show the wrong approach of evangelicals (and some other Christians) to the question of God when these folks tried to PROVE God. God can be believed in, but never proven.

Quote:

for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Right. If you had written that in the beginning a lot of unnecessary time and effort would have been saved, not to speak of unChristian dialogue. Since you didn't, it's clear that you needed to think about it before coming to the conclusion you did. That was my intent. It's OK for you to deny that - I understand.

Quote:

Yes, I did get it from you.

Good. Thank you.

Quote:

I know exactly what you have been saying.

Not from the beginning - else why not say so?

Quote:

How does a Christian develop an Atheistic point of view as Truth???

You still don't have it completely thought out. It is a scientific/logical point of view. Atheists can be both as can Christians.

Quote:

Any deity’s existence cannot be objectively proven from man-made schemes of thought and observation.

Other than the word "scheme", that is correct. "... proven from thought and observation" is better.

Quote:

Jesus is the closest we will ever come to knowing, loving, touching the living God

You don't KNOW that as a universal fact, but you're free to believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

That's what you Got out of all this?

Are you trying to take something away from the fact that God is 100% Man? Exact same Flesh as you and I???

I guess you don't know about the Trinity. Never mind then.

Quote:

I don't know why you repeated this post. Nervous?

Still learning the Advanced features when editing.

Quote:

Your perception is abysmal. I've never seen Tal to express atheism. You make wild statements like this frequently. You lose credibility when you do because it reflects on your poor reading comprehension.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

If you're referring to the topic here, it was never intended as a criticism

But it was, Interjected by you if not Tal.

Quote:

But you missed it

.
Yet here we are.

Quote:

It was intended to show the wrong approach of evangelicals (and some other Christians) to the question of God when these folks tried to PROVE God.

I had originally Jumped into the middle of the conversation.

To have a fellow believer ask such a question might be misunderstood...if not confusing. That's why I thought you were playing the Devils advocate. Now that I look back on it, it seems to me, you were playing *** advocate (for the sake of argument)?

Quote:

the wrong approach of evangelicals

Not necessarily a bad thing is it?
living in a world of faith...proof being all around. How does one separate from that?
Some Christians believe Jesus was talking to them, regarding witnesses.

Quote:

for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

You really owned this!
(Troubling)

Quote:

You and others here continually failed to acknowledge the truth of that statement

There is no truth in that statement; Jesus/God entered creation? Example: for a God whose existence could be demonstrated (demonstrated by Jesus) wouldn’t be a God.
He is an amazing God!

Quote:

God can be believed in, but never proven.

Never proven? When might it be proven?
You don't KNOW that as a universal fact, but you're free to believe it.
You don't see the value in prophecy? Why prophecy in the Bible???

Quote:

Jesus is the closest we will ever come to knowing, loving, touching the living God. You don't KNOW that as a universal fact, but you're free to believe it.

might only be true for some...I'm okay with it.
Come to the end of self, what do you have?
Jesus is everything. I have nothing outside of Jesus.

Quote:

I guess you don't know about the Trinity

If every time somebody mentions Jesus as being the Son of God or being 100% Human, Only to get a response- he is God. I know the person with that sort of response doesn't have the full knowledge or understanding of the Trinity, the Man Jesus...being 100% man.

I guess you don't know about baby Jesus.

We need Jesus. we need Faith in Jesus. We need put to death self and anything to do with self (aka. flesh).

I'm skipping most of what you wrote. It's redundant and answered previously. Some of it is also confused rambling. You really need to edit your writing, or think before you write.

Quote:

You don't see the value in prophecy? Why prophecy in the Bible??? Never proven? When might it be proven?

It's not clear what your point is here, if any. But I'll answer what I can. If "value of prophecy" refers to the Bible, then I don't see any value in it. For one thing, how are we to know if it's genuine. It seems to be a postdiction, not a prediction. That's a prophecy after the fact.

A prophecy is only proven when it is yet to happen, and if it actually happens when prophesized. Remember that Bible guy who made headlines prophesizing the second coming a few years ago? One of his followers was right here on this page warning everybody and declaring it was absolutely going to come true. He knew this for a fact, he claimed. Well, the day came and went, and no second coming. That guy disappeared never to be seen nor heard of again. Not even a word of explanation.

Quote:

You really need to edit your writing, or think before you write.

I really should. I Edit as I go. I spent the last two hours editing...even still.
I'll try to do better.

Quote:

Some of it is also confused rambling

Hmm, is that only the ones you don't agree with?
And I thought I was doing better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

I really should. I Edit as I go. I spent the last two hours editing...even still.
I'll try to do better.

That's good.

Quote:

Hmm, is that only the ones you don't agree with?

Obviously not. If you read what I reply to, you would know that.

Quote:

And I thought I was doing better.

You're erratic. For a while there you were getting better. So better, I assumed you were c/p'ing others.

Still editing (and two more hours). Hope I cleared up a few things.

Quote:

I assumed you were c/p'ing others

I sometimes take little snippets of what I have read. Is that is OK?

Quote:

If "value of prophecy" refers to the Bible, then I don't see any value in it. For one thing, how are we to know if it's genuine.

So prophecy has no place in the Bible?

Quote:

You and others here continually failed to acknowledge the truth of that statement

Should I ask? I'll assume you meant to say argument

Because you really owned that statement (for the sake Of argument).
We know there is no Truth in that statement.

Statement:

Quote:

for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

Still editing (and two more hours). Hope I cleared up a few things.

Not everything, but keep at it. Practice makes perfect.

Quote:

I sometimes take little snippets of what I have read. Is that is OK?

That's fine - especially when it helps to clarify.

Quote:

So prophecy has no place in the Bible?

I didn't say that. (Words in my mouth disease!) I said there's no way of knowing how genuine they are so any value they might have had is lacking for that reason. They have other uses. For example, showing how the later writers went back and inserted "prophecies" they knew had already happened. That's an indication how the writers thought and how they wrote. Today, we wouldn't accept that, but 2,000 years ago it may have been a regular method of writing. I do not know that for a fact. It is only my belief.

Quote:

Should I ask? I'll assume you meant to say argument

Because you really owned that statement (for the sake Of argument).
We know there is no Truth in that statement.

Statement:
for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

I didn't understand that. If you clarify it, I'll try to give you an answer to the question.

Quote:

for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Is this the statement in Question?

There is no truth in that statement?

Yet you expressed:

Quote:

You and others here continually failed to acknowledge the truth of that statement

So I assumed you were owning it (truth in the eyes of an atheist),for the sake of your argument? while knowing in your heart there is no truth in such a statement,,, Jesus being the defining factor.

Quote:

for a God whose existence could be demonstrated

We have a God who can be demonstrated. Jesus has done just that. Jesus has proved GOD, outside of faith...Humanity needs to apply Faith in Jesus, before it can prove itself.

That's the Best I can do for right now. I can do better given more time. This is useful too me, keeping my train of thought.
Sometime Walter talk can be well placed. Most the time not.

Quote:

My Statement was Directed at Tal. Which I perceived as an Atheist.

Context:
The criticism made by atheists that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

You would be very wrong on both counts. My faith in the God that I understand is based on a personal relationship, and in addition I am very grateful that God has manifested in my life with numerous blessings.

That's demonstration enough for me. Just saying.

Quote:

Fm Walter: for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

There is no truth in that statement?

That is the statement I AGREED with.

Quote:

Yet you expressed:
You and others here continually failed to acknowledge the truth of that statement

I'm acknowledging the TRUTH of that statement! My original position was "There is no evidence proving the existence of God". This was denied by several posts claiming the opposite. From the order in the universe, from Biblical sources, and others. Apparently, you jumped in during the middle of the conversation (your words), so you were NOT involved from the beginning. My apologies - I thought you were.

Quote:

I might be mixed up, was this the statement in Question?

You're not mixed up. I am.

Quote:

So I assumed you were owning it (truth in the eyes of an atheist),for the sake of your argument? while knowing in your heart there is no truth in such a statement,,, Jesus being the defining factor.

Now I'm confused all over again! I cannot decipher your meaning here, considering what has transpired. Wanna try again?

Sometimes I think I'm in a Marx Brothers movie.

Quote:

You would be very wrong on both counts

Noted.

Quote:

I am very grateful that God has manifested in my life with numerous blessings.

Same here.

Quote:

Humans are imperfect but they are trying their best...some of them at least.

I fail to see the relevance.

Quote:

for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Isn't this the basis for an atheist point of view???

Quote:

God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God

I'm confused. Are you saying Jesus hasn't demonstrated? or that Jesus is not God???

Quote:

It was intended to show the wrong approach of evangelicals (and some other Christians) to the question of God when these folks tried to PROVE God.

Not necessarily a bad thing is it?
living in a world of faith...proof being all around. How does one separate themselves from that?

Quote:

the wrong approach of

Without faith, it is all wrong.