alexleo:

He didn't create Gods. What he created is man so you can't be exactly like him. You are not God, you are man. He didn't say " let us create Gods". He said let us create man.

Psalm 82:6 says otherwise: "I say, 'You are gods"

Genesis 3:22

2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Now this shows you that when God talked about creating man in his image he was talking about character/attributes(of which knowing good and evil is one of his attributes). He wasn't talking about shape.

So the "made in his image" stuff is not physical but mental?
How come then he is supposedly good, while we are evil?
And omnipotent, etc?

This shows also that he didn't create man hundred percent like him.

So o was right and it was intentional?

You can see he didn't want man to eat from the tree of life and live forever(another attribute of him which he didn't put in us human).

He put sadism in humans...

Again e didn't originally put the knowledge of good and evil(like him) In man.
That's why I told you earlier that there are differences and limitations.

Reason?

You are just picking and choosing and twisting the bible to suit you

Isn't that the work of Christians .

Since you asked me questions based on biblical account then you should be truthful about it.

Show me where I lied.

When God created man( Adam), sin(which are some of the things you mentioned up there) wasn't part of him. You know the bible account of how man in exercising his freewill chose sin. Man wasn't originally created with sin.

And the sin originally was created by your god. [Isaiah 45:7]

Some other things happening to man came as a result of the curse God placed on man and the earth.

Till your God appeased himself by sending himself in human form to be killed by himself.

Apatheist:
Billions of others do not feel any creator.

That's their choice. It doesn't change anything.

Apatheist:
Billions more feel other creators, will you say that they ate wrong and your creator is the true one?

I ve told you We are talking about the source of creation(the creator). That's a common factor for us who believe there is a creator. The difference lies in our various unnderstanding and perception of him. The difference does not lie in the creator himself. Don't you get it?

The issue of claims of who is right and who is wrong about him is normal about human. Even you as an atheist is also claiming that your own path is the right one so its not as if the claims of right and wrong is restricted to religion its general.

One thing is sure, there are people who are on the right track. Some of them may not even be members of any denomination or religion per se but within them as individuals, they are enjoying wonderfull fellowship with the creator. That's why I said you should make some personal findings about the creator. Don't be lazy friend. .

Apatheist:
It would be asinine to say these things are the same.
Yahweh is not Allah, Bacchus is not Vishnu, Zeus is not Astarte. The gods are different, some are male, some female others hermaphrodite. Some are humans, others are animals. Is Sango the same as Amadioha? Allah forbids pork, Zeus doesn't, are they the same person? Yahweh forbids wine, Bacchus doesn't, are they the same person?
.

I ve given you answer to this up but let me also add that some of these "traditional gods" are not seen as creators by their worshipers. Some say that theirs is "god of protection" some say theirs is "god of war" some say theirs is "god of revenge" etc.

Here wa are talking about the source of creation(the creator). And I said that the difference does not lie in him but in our understanding of him.

One thing can be described differently by different people. That's normal about human.

Apatheist:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough-- Albert Einstein..

Yes God is infinite, too powerful, too great and too mysterious that we cannot understand him well enough with our limited nature that's why we can't explain him well enough.

@alexleo
Your problem begins with an assumption. A grand assumption that Order is a product of the mind. When the assumption is seen in its true light, it looks ridiculous. And to even say order is the natural expectation and product of the mind even places order above the mind. Do you understand me?

Apatheist:
Psalm 82:6 says otherwise: "I say, 'You are gods"

Yes it called us gods and the same psalm 82 8 called him God. So why wasn't God used for us and him? Genesis 1 and all the places he was mentioned in the bible called him God.

Again let me quote the whole of the verse you quoted and the next verse below

I say, ‘You are gods;
    you are all children of the Most High.
7 But you will die like mere mortals
    and fall like every other ruler.’”

The difference is still there in verse 7. We ll die like mere mortals.

Apatheist:
So the "made in his image" stuff is not physical but mental?
How come then he is supposedly good, while we are evil?
And omnipotent, etc?

I said that made in his own image is not about (physical) shape or appearance.

He didn't create us sinful originally I repeat. Even at that he still made provision for us to be saved from sin.

He is omnnipotent because he is God. We are not. And that's part of the differences I told you. This sstill shows you that we are not hundred percent like him.

Apatheist:
So o was right and it was intentional?

Yes it was intentional. He is a creator and he has his concept for all his creations.

Apatheist:
He put sadism in humans

Again read about the fall of man in Genesis. You are just running round. I'm not struggling to convince you. We are just discussing our belief and views. so chill bro.

Apatheist:
Reason?

Because he is the creator. He is in charge and has his concepts for each of his creations like I earlier said.

Apatheist:
And the sin originally was created by your god. [Isaiah 45:7]

Evil and sin are not really the same though they are in some ways connected. Death might be evil to some people but it is not sin. Same thing with poverty, sickness,Natural disaster etc. However the discussion about God and sin in relation to the fall off lucifer and man is a topic we can discuss on its own when you are ready.

Apatheist:

Till your God appeased himself by sending himself in human form to be killed by himself.

Jesus is the son of God. In john 3:17 God said- this is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased. Jesus always refered to God as his father.

Kay17: @alexleo
Your problem begins with an assumption. A grand assumption that Order is a product of the mind. When the assumption is seen in its true light, it looks ridiculous. And to even say order is the natural expectation and product of the mind even places order above the mind. Do you understand me?

No friend. I've proved God. Likewise billions of others. The truth is that creation has a source. There's no assumption about it. When I started this discussion I limited it to the source of creation(the creator). I didn't particularise it to christianity. It was him that pushed the discussion to christianity and I had to flow in that line. Cheers.

macof:

selling his religion in the guise of "you don't have to follow religion"

You keep talking of having a relationship with God outside religion when your entire God ideas are based on religion
Such hypocrisy

I started this discussion without attaching it to my relgion. My take is still the bible account. You and I know that I'm a christian so what's the hypochricy there? But I wanted to discuss the creator across board but he kept pushing the question about God and the bible to me and of course I can't deny what I ve proved. Yet I still believe some people encountered God outside relgion. I ve seen such testimonies.

macof:

Quick question...is God more wind than
human??
Since by your explanation, he seems to share
more with air than men

You played wayo here you know. .
This wasn't the original post you made earlier. You don adjust am bros. .

God or the creator(whichever one you choose to refer him) is not mortal and physical. He is super natural, a spiritl and invisible to the natural eyes. I can't tell his shape. I just used air to explain his invisible nature. Not that he is like air. Air is not supernatural, air is not a spirit being.

alexleo:

No friend. I've proved God. Likewise billions of others. The truth is that creation has a source. There's no assumption about it. When I started this discussion I limited it to the source of creation(the creator). I didn't particularise it to christianity. It was him that pushed the discussion to christianity and I had to flow in that line. Cheers.

How did you prove God's existence?

I don't know.. But I think the science point of view holds more ground (though it's still debatable) unlike the religious point of view,which to me, reminds me of that story book we read in primary school titled "Why The Tortoise Has A Broken Shell"... #folklore... So therefore,it should not be taken seriously.

alexleo:

You played wayo here you know. .
This wasn't the original post you made earlier. You don adjust am bros. .

God or the creator(whichever one you choose to refer him) is not mortal and physical. He is super natural, a spiritl and invisible to the natural eyes. I can't tell his shape. I just used air to explain his invisible nature. Not that he is like air. Air is not supernatural, air is not a spirit being.

signal problem, I didn't know it went until later

Wat makes air not "supernatural". And What makes anything considered supernatural??

alexleo:

I started this discussion without attaching it to my relgion. My take is still the bible account. You and I know that I'm a christian so what's the hypochricy there? But I wanted to discuss the creator across board but he kept pushing the question about God and the bible to me and of course I can't deny what I ve proved.

Yet I still believe some people encountered God outside relgion. I ve seen such testimonies.

it is hypocrisy to say "have a relationship with God outside religion" when christianity is the so called relationship you talking about

by God u probably mean the Christian God, cus I assume Zeus is not a God to you.
...on this ground, it's impossible to encounter Jehovah without having Christian doctrines in your head..this is what I call delusion after faith

First and foremost I would like to point out that the Big Bang theory isn't atheistic at all, rather, it's purely scientific in nature. Besides, I know certain Christians who believe in the Big Bang, that it was triggered by God.

Anyhoo, sure, scientific knowledge's provisional, and we may never have enough data to answer some questions to a given resolution, like the complete evolutionary lineage of a given organism. But if science can't do it, I don't think anyone else can.

The idea that someone can sit back, meditate on "nothing", and determine how the universe came to be seems ridiculous. They can imagine things, sure, but
whatever they imagine has no bearing on what actually is. And sure, anyone can come up with hypotheses, but I think the people most qualified/likely to come up with the best hypotheses, and establish the veracity of them, are scientists.

macof:

it is hypocrisy to say "have a relationship with God outside religion" when christianity is the so called relationship you talking about

by God u probably mean the Christian God, cus I assume Zeus is not a God to you.
...on this ground, it's impossible to encounter Jehovah without having Christian doctrines in your head..this is what I call delusion after faith

When I talked about the creator in my earlier posts I did mention that christians call him God, muslim call him Allah etc. And I said we understand him differently and relate with him differently but one has to be sure he is following the true path. Relating with him is still an individual thing. Yes I am a christian but my relationship with God Is not exactly the same way with the next christian sitting by my side in my church. Not exactly the same with that of my pastor etc.

Church or religion or reading books may give you a background info but its still left for you to make your personal findings about how you can relate with your creator. Its still an individual thing. When I pray for myself, I pray for other churches,for muslims and pagans. I pray for atheists and co.

macof:

signal problem, I didn't know it went until later

Wat makes air not "supernatural". And What makes anything considered supernatural??

Super natural is beyond the natural.

Oya answer my own questions. Are you and atheist? If you are not then give me your own concept of the creator. Let's see if I may learn one or two things from there. Over to you. Cheers.

dorox:
If we accept the premise on which you made your argument as true, that is; if God exists, there is a source behind his existence, then it will also be true that there is a source behind the source of God's existence, and a source behind the source that is behind the source of God's existence, and on and on indefinitely. My mathematics was just a way of showing that this will lead us back to the idea that God has no beginning.

if I agree with you that God has no source but he exist, but anything that exist must have a source

pesty100: if I agree with you that God has no source but he exist, but anything that exist must have a source

Can you be more clear please? I am not quite sure of the point you are trying to make

alexleo:

You played wayo here you know. .
This wasn't the original post you made earlier. You don adjust am bros. .

God or the creator(whichever one you choose to refer him) is not mortal and physical. He is super natural, a spiritl and invisible to the natural eyes. I can't tell his shape. I just used air to explain his invisible nature. Not that he is like air. Air is not supernatural, air is not a spirit being.

but moses saw something(I think glory) when he went to the mountian to collect commandment from God, and he is even said to have been the only man to see God

dorox:
Can you be more clear please? I am not quite sure of the point you are trying to make

am asking if you agree with me that for anything to exist it must have a source

pesty100: am asking if you agree with me that for anything to exist it must have a source

If that thing has a beginning, then it must have a source. But God has no beginning as I tried to show you earlier, hence He does not have a source.

Many believers will say, "It is impossible for you to prove that God (Allah, Ra, Vishnu, whatever) does not exist. There is no way to prove that something does not exist." This is a silly argument for the following reason:

Imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in the gerflagenflopple. You cannot prove that the gerflagenflopple does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly unprovable. There has to be some evidence that the gerflagenflopple exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the gerflagenflopple is imaginary.

If you think about it, you will realize that there is no difference between God and gerflagenflopple. Lots of people talk about God as though he exists, but there is no actual evidence for God's existence.

With every other object and phenomenon in our experience, we use the scientific method to determine whether it exists or not. For example, X rays are invisible, but we know that they exist. We can devise scientific experiments to prove that they exist. Then, once proven to exist, X-rays can be used predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways.

If you would like to hypothesize that God exists, then you should say to yourself, "Let's devise a repeatable scientific experiment to provide evidence that God exists." Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary.

Isn't it odd that God, unlike everything else in our universe, has been put into a special category? When we talk about God, we are supposed to do so "philosophically."

Why?

Why not treat God just like all other objects and devise experiments to detect his presence or absence? The classic religious response is, "God must remain hidden. If he proved his existence, that would take away faith." This is clever. Here we have an object named God that proves its existence by completely hiding its existence. Of course, in the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

Even more interesting, this object called God, which is supposedly hiding its existence completely, is in the meantime supposedly writing books, answering prayers and incarnating itself. How can that be? This obvious contradiction shows how imaginary God is.

-When we look at prayer scientifically, we find that "answered prayers" are actually nothing but coincidences.
-When we look at the Bible scientifically, ethically or rationally, we find that the Bible is wrong.
-When we look at all of Jesus' miracles scientifically, we find that none of them left behind any scientific or historical evidence. Nor, for that matter, did Jesus, nor did Jesus' resurrection.

The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.

dorox:
If that thing has a beginning, then it must have a source. But God has no beginning as I tried to show you earlier, hence He does not have a source.

source and beginning is the same, nothing spontaneously exists, except, God has decided to go against his own rule

RayMcBlue: With every other object and phenomenon in our experience, we use the scientific method to determine whether it exists or not. For example, X rays are invisible, but we know that they exist. We can devise scientific experiments to prove that they exist. Then, once proven to exist, X-rays can be used predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways.

If you would like to hypothesize that God exists, then you should say to yourself, "Let's devise a repeatable scientific experiment to provide evidence that God exists." Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary.

Isn't it odd that God, unlike everything else in our universe, has been put into a special category? When we talk about God, we are supposed to do so "philosophically."

Why?

Why not treat God just like all other objects and devise experiments to detect his presence or absence? The classic religious response is, "God must remain hidden. If he proved his existence, that would take away faith." This is clever. Here we have an object named God that proves its existence by completely hiding its existence. Of course, in the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

Even more interesting, this object called God, which is supposedly hiding its existence completely, is in the meantime supposedly writing books, answering prayers and incarnating itself. How can that be? This obvious contradiction shows how imaginary God is.

-When we look at prayer scientifically, we find that "answered prayers" are actually nothing but coincidences.
-When we look at the Bible scientifically, ethically or rationally, we find that the Bible is wrong.
-When we look at all of Jesus' miracles scientifically, we find that none of them left behind any scientific or historical evidence. Nor, for that matter, did Jesus, nor did Jesus' resurrection.

The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.

This post is the best response so far for what alexleo has been trying to say about god. . .

RayMcBlue: With every other object and phenomenon in our experience, we use the scientific method to determine whether it exists or not. For example, X rays are invisible, but we know that they exist. We can devise scientific experiments to prove that they exist. Then, once proven to exist, X-rays can be used predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways.

If you would like to hypothesize that God exists, then you should say to yourself, "Let's devise a repeatable scientific experiment to provide evidence that God exists." Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary.

Isn't it odd that God, unlike everything else in our universe, has been put into a special category? When we talk about God, we are supposed to do so "philosophically."

Why?

Why not treat God just like all other objects and devise experiments to detect his presence or absence? The classic religious response is, "God must remain hidden. If he proved his existence, that would take away faith." This is clever. Here we have an object named God that proves its existence by completely hiding its existence. Of course, in the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

Even more interesting, this object called God, which is supposedly hiding its existence completely, is in the meantime supposedly writing books, answering prayers and incarnating itself. How can that be? This obvious contradiction shows how imaginary God is.

-When we look at prayer scientifically, we find that "answered prayers" are actually nothing but coincidences.
-When we look at the Bible scientifically, ethically or rationally, we find that the Bible is wrong.
-When we look at all of Jesus' miracles scientifically, we find that none of them left behind any scientific or historical evidence. Nor, for that matter, did Jesus, nor did Jesus' resurrection.

The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.

I've been following this thread but this your statement caught me and that's the reason I have to comment. @ the bold ^^^^. That's where you got it all wrong..reasons, please can you run an experiment to determine what happened and how the weather is the day you were born? .........if you can't, then GOD source can't be proven too cos he supersede us all.

kingk:

I've been following this thread but this your statement caught me and that's the reason I have to comment. @ the bold ^^^^. That's where you got it all wrong..reasons, please can you run an experiment to determine what happened and how the weather is the day you were born? .........if you can't, then GOD source can't be proven too cos he supersede us all.

Yes, it can be done with a method called "Parallax." The process is complicated and I won't bore you with the details, but ponder on this: If science can accurately predict the path and strength of erratic forces of natures like hurricanes and tornadoes, accurately carbon date a fossil and can calculate the exact distance of earth to the nearest star, what made you think it can't figure out something as mundane as thus?

"God source can't be proven cos he supersede us all" you say?

First of all let's tackle Jesus' resurrection.

There is only one way for Jesus to prove that he rose from the dead. He had to appear to people. Therefore, several different places in the Bible describe Jesus' appearances after his death:

-Matthew chapter 28
-Mark chapter 16
-Luke chapter 24
-John Chapter 20 and 21

(As you can see in this passage, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people a number of different times).

When we look at these Bible passages, there is a question that comes to mind: Why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't Jesus appearing today?

It really is odd. Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions.

So... Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul. There is nothing to stop Jesus from materializing in your kitchen tonight to have a personal chat with you. And if you think about it, Jesus really does need to appear to each of us. If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn't you? It is an important question for the following reasons:

-We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people.
-We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people - it does not take away their free will, for example.
-We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful and timeless.
-We know that, if Jesus did reappear to everyone, it would be incredibly helpful. We could all know, personally, that Jesus is resurrected and that Jesus is God. If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me?
-Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.

In other words, there is nothing stopping Jesus from appearing to you, and several good reasons for him to
appear.

Many believers will try to rationalize Jesus' absence by pointing to his famous statement in the Bible, "Happy are those who have not seen yet still believe."

If you think about this statement, what you realize is that it creates the perfect cover for a scam. Let's say you are Jesus, you are a normal human being, you realize that you are going to die and you want to cover for this fact. Here is what you would say: "Happy are those who have not seen yet still believe." What you are saying is, "I exist, and the way I am going to show you that I exist is by not showing that I exist." For every other object in the universe, the way that we know it exists is because the object provides evidence of its existence. If there is no evidence for an object's existence, we call it imaginary (e.g. gerflagenflopple). But with Jesus, the lack of evidence is turned into evidence. Quite clever, but obviously a scam.

You simply need to look at the evidence and accept what it is telling you. If the resurrection were true, then Jesus would be answering prayers as he promises in the Bible. He would also appear when people pray to see him. The fact is, there is definitive evidence that prayer accomplishes nothing. It is also obvious that Jesus is not appearing on earth today. In other words, he's imaginary.

Many believers try to rationalize God's existence by saying something like this: "The existence of the universe proves God's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, God created it."

The way to understand that this is a rationalization is to look back in history. Ancient people, before they had science, explained many things that they did not understand with "gods." There have been sun gods, thunder gods, fertility gods, rain gods, etc.

The Bible works the same way. It tries to explain many
things that its ancient authors did not understand by
attributing them in God. For example, if you read Genesis 9:12-13 you will find this:

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I
make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me
and the earth..."

This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we
now know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops. In the same way, Genesis chapter 3 tries to explain why human childbirth is so painful and Genesis chapter 11 tries to explain why there are so many human languages. These are myths, nothing more.


The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun rising or rainbows appearing. Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet. While it is true that science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out. When they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe, not an imaginary being. Don't get it twisted.

RayMcBlue:

Yes, it can be done with a method called "Parallax." The process is complicated and I won't bore you with the details, but ponder on this: If science can accurately predict the path and strength of erratic forces of natures like hurricanes and tornadoes, accurately carbon date a fossil and can calculate the exact distance of earth to the nearest star, what made you think it can't figure out something as mundane as thus?

"God source can't be proven cos he supersede us all" you say?

First of all let's tackle Jesus' resurrection.

There is only one way for Jesus to prove that he rose from the dead. He had to appear to people. Therefore, several different places in the Bible describe Jesus' appearances after his death:

-Matthew chapter 28
-Mark chapter 16
-Luke chapter 24
-John Chapter 20 and 21

(As you can see in this passage, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people a number of different times).

When we look at these Bible passages, there is a question that comes to mind: Why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't Jesus appearing today?

It really is odd. Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions.

So... Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul. There is nothing to stop Jesus from materializing in your kitchen tonight to have a personal chat with you. And if you think about it, Jesus really does need to appear to each of us. If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn't you? It is an important question for the following
reasons:

-We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people.
-We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people - it does not take away their free will, for example.
-We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful
and timeless.
-We know that, if Jesus did reappear to everyone, it would be incredibly helpful. We could all know, personally, that Jesus is resurrected and that Jesus is God. If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me?
-Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.

In other words, there is nothing stopping Jesus from appearing to you, and several good reasons for him to
appear.

Many believers will try to rationalize Jesus' absence by pointing to his famous statement in the Bible, "Happy are
those who have not seen yet still believe."

If you think about this statement, what you realize is that it creates the perfect cover for a scam. Let's say you are
Jesus, you are a normal human being, you realize that you are going to die and you want to cover for this fact. Here is what you would say: "Happy are those who have not seen yet still believe." What you are saying is, "I exist, and the way I am going to show you that I exist is by not showing that I exist." For every other object in the universe, the way that we know it exists is because the object provides evidence of its existence. If there is no evidence for an object's existence, we call it imaginary (e.g. gerflagenflopple). But with Jesus, the lack of evidence is turned into evidence. Quite clever, but obviously a scam.

You simply need to look at the evidence and accept what it is telling you. If the resurrection were true, then Jesus would be answering prayers as he promises in the Bible. He would also appear when people pray to see him. The fact is, there is definitive evidence that prayer accomplishes nothing. It is also obvious that Jesus is not appearing on earth today.

^^^ all noted....but, ilet's ponder on these bible passages
First.....john 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

that's the reason Jesus is not here with us physically, cos the comforter is with us,not that he don't hear us,

But christ said something in the book of John 14: 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

So it's not a fairy tale as you claim it to be rather, jesus christ is real and to all who believe and are alive when he will return ....yes he shall surely return. Cos in Mathew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

So chill, cos everything is true about christ.


BTW...I have a question for you, do you believe in predictions such as scientific ones? meteorologist for example.

kingk:
^^^ all noted....but, ilet's ponder on these bible passages
First.....john 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

that's the reason Jesus is not here with us physically, cos the comforter is with us,not that he don't hear us,

But christ said something in the book of John 14: 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

So it's not a fairy tale as you claim it to be rather, jesus christ is real and to all who believe and are alive when he will return ....yes he shall surely return. Cos in Mathew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

So chill, cos everything is true about christ.

While we are on the topic of the resurrection, have you ever thought about how odd the whole crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:

"Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin... Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human being right down to the nanosecond level for all eternity. If I didn't like how it was going to turn out, I could have simply changed them when I created them. And since I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them...

So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me. That will, finally, make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me, that will satisfy me. I feel much better now."

It makes no sense, does it? Why would an all-knowing being need to have humans kill himself (Jesus is God, after all) to make himself happy? Especially since it is a perfect God who set the whole thing in motion exactly the way he wanted it? The story of the crucifixion is absurd from top to bottom if you actually stop to think about it. By combining the crucifixion story with the resurrection story, you can see the truth: "God" is a mythological creature just like every other human god. The entire religious domain is make believe.

kingk:
BTW...I have a question for you, do you believe in predictions such as scientific ones? meteorologist for example.

I don't believe in predictions. I believe in what can be scientifically proven. I believe in mathematical calculations and equations. And that is basically what a meteorologist does. He doesn't predict, he calculates.

alexleo:

Some refer to that source as a force, some refer to the source as energy, the bible refers to the source as God.

We can't say exactly the shape of that source yet the source, though invisible, has characteristIcs/attributes. We describe God(as chrIstians) based on his attributes that are manifest- ( creator, love, mercy. Wrath etc).

True, the bible does refer to the source as God. And then it goes on to claim that this source had a chat with a handful of illiterate villagers from a remote region in Asia.

alexleo:

When I talked about the creator in my earlier posts I did mention that christians call him God, muslim call him Allah etc. And I said we understand him differently and relate with him differently but one has to be sure he is following the true path. Relating with him is still an individual thing. Yes I am a christian but my relationship with God Is not exactly the same way with the next christian sitting by my side in my church. Not exactly the same with that of my pastor etc.

Church or religion or reading books may give you a background info but its still left for you to make your personal findings about how you can relate with your creator. Its still an individual thing. When I pray for myself, I pray for other churches,for muslims and pagans. I pray for atheists and co.

There is ZERO chance of a Muslim entering heaven, but by the salvation afforded through Jesus Christ. Your prayers are for them to renounce their creator and embrace the concept of yours. Otherwise, you're asking Jesus to declare himself a liar.

alexleo:

Super natural is beyond the natural.

Oya answer my own questions. Are you and atheist? If you are not then give me your own concept of the creator. Let's see if I may learn one or two things from there. Over to you. Cheers.

Sorry but more questions...what is natural? And what are the sources of supernatural and natural?

I am a Yoruba, that's my only identity.
based on my search and experience, there's no God, be it Zeus, Jehovah, Obatala etc. but there are spirits personified as Gods The creator is one of this Gods(often called the supreme God) the first cause, self-existent and the beginning of all consciousness.
The creator created from itself, and not from nothing. As such all of creation possess the consciousness (spirit) of the creator, the sum of this consciousness is the spirit that is personified as God (the supreme). We can say as humans, or as Alexleo you are in God as it is in you literally, because this spirit is everything (and not jst it's source) in every sense of the word.

However when we talk of Gods in general, Gods or gods are spirit forms of this first God, each incharge of one expect of universal existence(or more depending on how they related to each other ie. Ecstasy and Love, beauty and feminism, fire and anger, iron and war etc.)
now by spirits I mean, inorganic and unseen but movers with consciousness that manifest into the "seen". as such they have no human characteristics whatsoever, they rather provide us with our characteristics.
That is why I disagree with you when u say God feels wrath or love, but then I understand as your understanding of the unseen is not like mine.