Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Faith is grasping that which can not be understood by the intellect.
God is that which cannot be understood by the intellect, that is why it requires faith to accept God as He is whatever He is. Faith does NOT mean to accept the traits assigned to God by humans who decided what God MUST be to be God. That is just human vanity and hubris. How dare you pretend you know what God MUST be?
Quote:
Mysticism is that which can not be explained by science or rational thought.
Mysticism is that which can not YET be explained by science or rational thought.
Quote:
MPhd you flat out reject magic mysticism and the supernatural. Where in your intellectual narrative (thread title, your words) is faith in any of this?
See above. Clearly, you see faith as accepting the traits of God imagined and demanded by humans for God to qualify to BE God, I don't. When I was young, I immersed myself in fanstasy, magic, science fiction, etc. because it was fun and I got lost in the feelings of wonder and magic. As I matured, I still find some of it enjoyable, but I do not allow myself to get as immersed in it as I did. Reality is more than sufficiently wonder-inducing for me.
So, basically you have no criticism of the cohesion of the concept, but constantly bring up OTHER concepts you can mock and then say that you have already talked Mystic's concept to death and the thing you don't like about it is that it includes ANY KIND of concept about the nature of God.... and you can't PROVE it...so there.
I don't think you "took" anyone, Transponder.
The short answer to both points is
(a) No
(b) yes.
And anyone with a bit of nous will read the way the debate went rather than your comment on them.
The bold in your post is the problem with the Creator meme which is why I do not ascribe to it. My post was on point with yours.
You did it again I was commenting on Gaylen's post - which you were cheering to the skies. The problem really is with you -all the time, and it's like you're trying to bat away the opposition while keeping your eyes shut. You miss half the time and the other half don't know what you are hitting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God is that which cannot be understood by the intellect, that is why it requires faith to accept God as He is whatever He is. Faith does NOT mean to accept the traits assigned to God by humans who decided what God MUST be to be God. That is just human vanity and hubris. How dare you pretend you know what God MUST be? Mysticism is that which can not YET be explained by science or rational thought. See above. Clearly, you see faith as accepting the traits of God imagined and demanded by humans for God to qualify to BE God, I don't. When I was young, I immersed myself in fanstasy, magic, science fiction, etc. because it was fun and I got lost in the feelings of wonder and magic. As I matured, I still find some of it enjoyable, but I do not allow myself to get as immersed in it as I did. Reality is more than sufficiently wonder-inducing for me.
Well done, Mystic. You demolished your own case more effectively that anything I could post.
It's down to Faith. First, last and in between, and the 'evidence' is appeal to the unexplained. (1)
The method of rejecting all the 'human' views of this or that god -claim has it's advantages. It makes you more a Sortagod -theist than a personal -god theist. But you do rather spoil it by assigning a special place to the NT, which you not only take as a reliable record (eyes closed and fingers in ears, old mate) but in some way set up by god while...pretending it isn't (by tinkering with semantics).
And it's all down to faith in YOUR theory. Not the experience, but in your theory about it. And it doesn't stand up any better than any of the 'human' hypotheses or beliefs -of which yours is just one more - but an ingenious one.
And I'll say again - you and a couple of others have no rebuttal but to engage in personals about me. I don't mind. I did the job - yet again.
Now, I'll make a deal with you. If you stop pissing over my character in hopes to save your debunked beliefs about that mysterious experience people get, I'll leave you to argue with all the others in what is after all your own thread.
(1) which of course YOU can explain having divinely inspired knowledge of the Truth. Just as all the other faith -believers quite clearly believe, too. But, just as the poster we occasionally get with 'proof' through spirit messages, that are demonstrably incorrect scuppers her whole theory. Demonstration that you claims about the gospel (they are reliable record - my prediction about the Luke quote is just one of myriad evidences they are invented) are wrong is proof that you are no more getting reliable inspired information than any creationist.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-01-2017 at 04:00 AM..
Missed it AGAIN, Transponder. Mystic does NOT take the NT "as a reliable record (eyes closed and fingers in ears...)" and if you would take your pre-conceived notions out of your head long enough to actually tey to understand what he DOES say about it you might actually begin to start making sense.
You are making one pivotal error Pneuma my old sparring partner - humans are human and not divinely inspired (and neither is that Bible they wrote) and yet, even that is in a meaningful order. We don't get Kings, Tao Te Ching, Paul, Daniel, Bhagavad Gita Exodus, John, Revelation, tripitaka, Genesis and the other three gospels with Numbers to finish up with.
But that is apparently the best this teaching god can do. Doesn't it make more sense to you that this is stuff that humans, trying to make of a world they don't understand come up with and none of it really hangs together, let alone form any divine curriculum?
And all the atheists I have ever encountered seem to to see science as I do. It doesn't know everything, and we have to accept that it probably never will or even could know everything. But by random factors, it has found out more than anyone could ever have believed possible and PROVED a lot of it, too. It is pretty reliable, in fact and is, after all the only method that has shown itself to be so.
Divine revelation has rather shown itself (as we have seen here ) rather not able to agree on what kind of car it is or what colour it is.
If you didn't Get that reference...it's worth yet another re -post.
I agree science is pretty reliable in their hard fact (gravity for example) but they are ever growing in knowledge of the sciences.
it is the same thing with peoples views of Go; they are ever growing in knowledge of God.
Yet you allow the scientist to grow in knowledge of science and have no problem with that, but wont allow people to grow in knowledge of God, thinking that a 2000+ year old book is the accumulated knowledge of God. See the problem
Basically yes, it is. Is that a problem? And of course, research on the brain has not answered all the questions. So I suppose one can say there are gaps for god in that area, But Gaps for god has never been a sound argument even when we knew nothing about how the brain worked.
It is a problem that Dawkins thinks evolution has been figured out and it's simple.
You still know nothing about how the brains works.
Missed it AGAIN, Transponder. Mystic does NOT take the NT "as a reliable record (eyes closed and fingers in ears...)" and if you would take your pre-conceived notions out of your head long enough to actually tey to understand what he DOES say about it you might actually begin to start making sense.
Ok, I made a mistake here: simple exhortations to you to PAY ATTENTION don't bear any fruit, so let's walk through THIS one:
You can NOT seem to let go of the idea that there MUST be some "authority" on which to base faith other than the very NATURE of the entity Mystic says he encountered and so you ASSUME he accepts the NT AS WRITTEN for that authority when what he SAID is that the spirit or nature of the expression he found (which can take some sifting through various perceptioons expressed there) matched the entity he had encountered.
Having substituted his rationale with your own, you castuigate him for it.
God is that which cannot be understood by the intellect, that is why it requires faith to accept God as He is whatever He is. Faith does NOT mean to accept the traits assigned to God by humans who decided what God MUST be to be God. That is just human vanity and hubris. How dare you pretend you know what God MUST be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am so saddened by this knowledge because of my encounter and absolute certainty about the true nature of God.
You ask Tzaphkiel how he/she dares to pretend to know how God must be while you claim to have had an encounter with God and that you yourself therefore have ''absolute certainty about the true nature of God'' which by extension means that you are claiming to know how God must be. For if God is as you are ''absolutely certain'' He is, then you cannot allow that God may not be what you are ''absolutely certain'' He is, otherwise you are not ''absolutely certain'' about the true nature of God. You can't have it both ways. Yet you are claiming that God must be as you are ''absolutely certain'' He is while asking how someone else can dare to do so.
I call that another case of hypocrisy on your part. Something of which you are so often guilty. I do of course suspect that you will attempt to put a favorable spin on this so that you, at least in your own eyes, come out looking good.
Last edited by Michael Way; 07-01-2017 at 08:30 AM..
I call that another case of hypocrisy on your part. Something you are often guilty of. I do of course suspect that you will attempt to put a favorable spin on this so that you, at least in your own eyes, come out looking good.
You seriously cant see the difference between Mystic's reporting his perception and those who arbitrarily assign characteristics to God that are not only unfounded but self-contradictory and asking how one dares to do so?
What did Jesus mean by saying that "God is Spirit" or John by saying "God is love?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was commenting on Gaylen's post - which you were cheering to the skies. The problem really is with you -all the time, and it's like you're trying to bat away the opposition while keeping your eyes shut. You miss half the time and the other half don't know what you are hitting at.
) rather not able to agree on what kind of car it is or what colour it is.
