God Is A Whole Single Father/Parent

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

your post is evidence something exists that you are posting at all is evidence

are you saying you are dead?

It is only evidence of what ancient people thought/believed existed based on the evidence they had, not that it actually did/does exist.​

 

[MMS]

It is only evidence of what ancient people thought/believed existed based on the evidence they had, not that it actually did/does exist.​

so you are saying your existence may not actually exist because you do not believe in the existence of your forbears?



this is why i say logic/knowledge can be inherently destructive. Inasmuch you take a stance its only function is to separate, like a blade

i can assure you, that life does not come from a blade.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

so you are saying your existence may not actually exist because you do not believe in the existence of your forbears?

No. What I'm saying is that there is no coherent ontology for 'G-d'.​

 

[Dwayne_Taylor]

If you agreed with my interpretation of understood what elohim meant, the other versions would be easy to rule-out......as they have been​

Fixed for you

 

[Tair]

I couldn't even find the link I was looking for. So much info out there.

Sorry but I don't feel like arguing with you anymore.

not to invade in y'all's argument, but Gene subscribes to the idea that Black people are the cursed offspring of Canaan.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Fixed for you

Too bad that isn't MY interpretation so, there was nothing to fix....

What Does the Hebrew Term Elohim Mean?

The Plural Elohim of Psalm 82: Gods or Men? - Dr. Michael Heiser​

 

[MMS]

No. What I'm saying is that there is no coherent ontology for 'G-d'.​

thats because you are using residue to describe that which makes residue.

its a circular and ultimately mistaken understanding, you cant philosophy your way to the divine. You can only philosophy away from the divine

Neoplatonism is like a gate that only a few understand how to cross. Its to turn back from it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

thats because you are using residue to describe that which makes residue.

'That which makes residue' doesn't tell me what 'G-d' actually is. Same fate befalls things like 'Unmoved Mover', 'Alpha and Omega', 'source of reality', and various other iterations of descriptions that ultimately fail to coherently define what it is people are talking about.​

 

[MMS]

'That which makes residue' doesn't tell me what 'G-d' actually is. Same fate befalls things like 'Unmoved Mover', 'Alpha and Omega', 'source of reality', and various other iterations of descriptions that ultimately fail to coherently define what it is people are talking about.​

its because you are deciding what can and cant be. You arent a good judge of that. In fact i would say no creature is

Consider if I said of "dafunkdoc" is a list of qualities then say, ..."that ultimately fail to coferently define what a dafunkdoc people are talking about". Its self destructive

epithets and descriptors arent a substitute for the living creature, but rather these descriptions shackle your own understanding

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

its because you are deciding what can and cant be.

That isn't true. If I were to tell you that glarfignergens are brown, 10 meters tall, and smell like peaches, would that tell you what a glarfignergen is?​

 

[MMS]

That isn't true. If I were to tell you that glarfignergens are brown, 10 meters tall, and smell like peaches, would that tell you what a glarfignergen is?​

yes from your perspective, so it would be one reference for what a glarfignergens is. With a second reference I would then be able to judge whether your reference was correct to the other reference...otherwise you would be the only reference. Yet my judgement of what is the correct reference for what a glarfignergens could still come crashing down by a third or Nth reference. It makes no difference, dont mistake God for what he creates

Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 3 - King James Version

look up the meaning of the names of Shadrach, Mesach and Abednego

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

yes from your perspective, so it would be one reference for what a glarfignergens is. With a second reference I would then be able to judge whether your reference was correct to the another reference...otherwise you would be the only reference.

Okay, then, please, objectively define 'G-d'.​

 

[MMS]

Okay, then, please, objectively define 'G-d'.​

I cannot define God

I can only surmise my beliefs in God, in orthodoxy this dilemma is defined by separating Gods "essence" which is unchanging with Gods "energies" which can be felt and experienced.

If God is one, then is essence his one. Meaning all is of God at the very least and all responds and is in feedback with God at the most (probably both)

therefore Gods energies can be felt by those who practice Gods ways. That said, the understanding of God is illuminated by the Torah. Not that God is OF the Torah...IE the Torah did not "make" God rather the Torah is a byproduct of Gods energies being utilized (Joshuas cleromancy, ummim and thummim etc)

That said as you've said and I've said...if you believe in Jesus Christ the incarnate word of God and Gods only begotten son you can avoid all of the nonsense and babylonian trickery by just accepting the God of the word is true.

All things are declared so despite what any man has done or will do, God knows it, and how God will utilize it will only be realized by those who believe in the firstplace. Non-believers will turn to their idols, divination, their own made-up ideas etc

That's why the strongest position a man can make is to "Trust and Wait on the Lord" this also is inline with Zeus favoring Epimetheus (hindsight) over Prometheus (foresight aka the "light-bringer")

by analyzing the past we can ascertain Gods judgement and move accordingly but religion can skew many things due to satanic pride

....

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

....

+Rep​

 

[MMS]

+Rep​

over and over again
We are living in a world of illusion