It’s never been about Atheism or Theism ….its always been about a total rejection of God’s plan of salvation.
We know you have totally rejected it because you are going to be jumping over the fence into the sheepfold with your good works.You freely admit that you are going to try and add to Gods plan with your own inputs (your own good works)………You don’t get an input Ichthus…you don’t get a say in any of it.
He invites us to participate. Actually, he commands us to love. It’s not about good works saving us (Kierkegaard’s religiousness A). It’s about contributing to the beauty after we already know we’re loved (religiousness B, works of love).
You’re so provocative, Schmupiter. Go run laps & work off your doofus facishness.
You are going to add your own good works to your belief in God (completely rejecting the plan of salvation that God has put in place) believing that this will be good enough to get you into heaven Ichthus…..cut the nonsense…..Matthew 7:21-23 applies directly to you a Theists…..it couldn’t be any clearer…It’s you that needs to shut up…..we both know that.
Even the devil and his demons believe in God Ichthus…..what’s so special about that?
You need to write your own religious book because your beliefs have got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the bible says.
Your religion doesn’t believe in what the bible actually says Ichthus so why do you refer to it as your holy book….Your religious cult should write their unholy book.
Matthew 7:21-23 specifically refers to theists like yourself.
It is a process , not a thing or a person, that is immanent. God is in process of becoming. It can be useful to form an image of God as a transcendent being, but there is risk of idolatry when God is imagined.
First of all, what about the fact that the information of each moment doesn’t stay in its own moment necessarily?
What about it? Information flows, it changes. It’s not supposed to stay in the moment.
Ichthus77 wrote:
Second of all, why don’t you believe in a personal God if you believe the universe experiences as a whole?
A “personal” God to me is a God that can be thought of as a person. I don’t think God is a person. This was my point about not anthropomorphizing God. God is a being that we cannot comprehend. He is conscious, but his consciousness consists of experiences that are far beyond our ability to imagine. This God does not experience thought, emotions, sensations, or anything human beings are familiar with–except in one very narrow sense–in the sense that we experience these things, and since we are a part of God, so does God.
Ichthus77 wrote:
I haven’t read the entirety of your last two replies. And honestly, if you don’t believe God is love, I question the fruitfulness of engaging any further on this issue at this time.
Geez, Itch, haven’t read my two posts and already you’re judging me. That’s ok, I’ll tell you what I said. I said that my theory does not rule out a God of love. It just doesn’t lead to that conclusion explicitly. My theory paints God as a mystery–maybe all loving, maybe all hating, maybe beyond love and hate. But maybe you know something I don’t. Maybe you know that Good is all love. And, well, that would be perfectly compatible with my theory (and a welcome insight).
Think of it like what science has to say about the existence of aliens. You can know all the science in the world, right down to the nitty gritty details. But that wouldn’t tell you whether aliens exist or not. It allows for the possibility, but to date we have no scientific proof. But obviously the existence of aliens is perfectly compatible with science and does not negate it in the least.
This discussion about immanence–not everywhere but not nowhere–seems to offer some room to futureone. I wonder if he (she?) would accept immanence instead of omnipresence. Omnipresence, especially the way futureone seems to understand it, means everywhere. But if immanence means not everywhere (and not nowhere), there would seem to be room for compromise.
And I wonder if there’s a word for “always with you”. It’s like God is with you wherever you go, like your shadow. But that doesn’t mean He is everywhere simultaneous, just like your shadow is not everywhere simultaneously. Nevertheless, no matter where you are in the universe, God is there. Would futureone accept that?
Something that begins whole, in other words, fully developed, is not a process that requires more development. It is a demonstration of full development.
The beginning was a seed. The “singularity”. The fractal one in every moment.
Don’t talk nonsense Ichthus…there was no singularity…that’s a religious cult of atheistic Santa Science myth….All matter enters and exits the cosmos from the multiple holes at the centre of the multiple galaxies that are out there.
Atheists and their BS Santa Science are hilarious.
Magic is not scientific Ichthus……if there was nothing before Santa Science then MAGIC must have initiated it.If something initiated it then the starting +=- and -=+ philosophy for Santa Science is incorrect.
Either way Santa science has been proven to be TOTAL BS!!!
You can’t explain how binary code is produced with cognitively biased atheistic mainstream Santa Science Ichthus….that was its downfall.They’ll get to this realisation very soon.They are just unaware you see.They have been kept in the dark because of their unbelief.