Aemmyjah:
Confused agnostic
We have not seen the Creator God
But from the things made, we can conclude that he exists

Why he? Why not she? Why not "It" (genderless). Why not they (plural)?

For example, at a time, people never knew about what causes diseases but the use of lens and microscope helped them to see that microorganisms are the causes of some diseases
There are also tools or instruments that helped us know we have clusters, galaxies, atoms, we are still discovering things

Humans want to see God in order to believe he exists. Let them go and invent such instruments na.

They are awed by his creative works but instead of acknowledging God, they acknowledge 'mother nature's.
Let them first come to convince that there is no Creator God.
They themselves know it is foolish to believe that something does not exist simply because we can't see it, hear it or measure it. God is not wind, air, temperature or gravity or time or space.
They can't measure the beginning of time or space. The concept is too wonderful to contemplate. How much more the Creator?

No one ever said we want to "see" your God in order to believe he exists. Just as we don't ask to see air or UV rays to know they exist. Creation, in and of itself, tells us very little about the creator/creators.

Saying there is a cause is one thing. Saying the cause has X, or Y attributes is another topic entirely. For you to say that a cause has certain attributes, you need to show some sort of evidence. So far, you've shown none.

I'll say again. Creation can attest to a cause. But nothing so far, points to the alleged attributes you've assigned to said cause.

Is life and the universe the work of a Creator or they came by Chance?

Once again, very, very few people claim the universe arose by chance. You're pulling at straws here.

SocialJustice:
Lol, nobody is stumbling and falling. I'm empathetic to their view because we're all 2 sides of a coin. Despite our different views, none of us have God in our personal experience but we choose to believe why they don't.

Their views naturally are just the result of the educational system which is based on empiricism-Seeing to believe.

Could you throw more light on the emboldened?

elated177:


Could you throw more light on the emboldened?

Have you ever met God? Had a discussion with the entity, shook hands or whatever but there are countless books written about God and the manifestation of creation around us.

Some choose to believe, others do not but it is 2 sides of a coin, believers and unbelievers do not have God in their personal experience. We are all relying on what people said to draw conclusions.

SocialJustice:


Have you ever met God? Had a discussion with the entity, shook hands or whatever but there are countless books written about God and the manifestation of creation around us.

Those who worship demons have them as their gods. Do not tell me that such people do not see and interact with their gods - their demons. It appears you are trying to say that those demon worshippers have not met or did not meet them before worshipping them.

Reading and studying and comprehending the Scriptures of the Creator are also ways of having a discussion with him. Don't you agree?

Social justice post= 118968372:

Some choose to believe, others do not but it is 2 sides of a coin, believers and unbelievers do not have God in their personal experience. We are all relying on what people said to draw conclusions.

Two sides of a coin? How? There is a difference between a believer and an unbeliever. The believer and the unbeliever are not the same. They share no similarity within the context of discourse.

Personal experiences do not necessarily have to mean the ones that you highlighted above. I have had many personal experiences with my God, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, YHVH Almighty. So, no, I don't depend on what others have said and any subsequent conclusion drawn from them. Nope!

I can speak for myself. I can unequivocally assert what I have seen, felt, tasted and confirmed to be real and true.

Wilgrea7:


Which God exactly?
Why one? Why not 2, or 10?

You weren't always of these views? What made you do a 360° anticlockwise?

elated177:


Those who worship demons have them as their gods. Do not tell me that such people do not see and interact with their gods - their demons. It appears you are trying to say that those demon worshippers have not met or did not meet them before worshipping them.

Reading and studying and comprehending the Scriptures of the Creator are also ways of having a discussion with him. Don't you agree?




Two sides of a coin? How? There is a difference between a believer and an unbeliever. The believer and the unbeliever are not the same. They share no similarity within the context of discourse.

Personal experiences do not necessarily have to mean the ones that you highlighted above. I have had many personal experiences with my God, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, YHVH Almighty. So, no, I don't depend on what others have said and any subsequent conclusion drawn from them. Nope!

I can speak for myself. I can unequivocally assert what I have seen, felt, tasted and confirmed to be real and true.

Try to see life without it being tainted by your bias and stories heard.

I have shared my view, I don't expect anyone to accept it neither do I see the need to convince anyone to.

SocialJustice:
Try to see life without it being tainted by your bias and stories heard.

Bias and stories heard? Lol! Lol! Lol! You mean see life from your own little perspective and reject what I have experientially confirmed? No, thanks. Mba!

You aren't really any different from the guys who are opening these kinds of threads. They are not looking for anything like evidence or proof. They are simply looking for whose life and faith they will turn upside down and, by so doing, earn more ranks and, probably, boost their ego.

SocialJustice post= 118969028:


I have shared my view, I don't expect anyone to accept it neither do I see the need to convince anyone to.

Be free to hold on to it.

I am also free to hold on to mine. I am also free to share what I have seen, felt, tasted and confirmed and certified to be true. I don't chase shadows. My God did not tell me to seek him in vain.

elated177:



You weren't always of these views? What made you do a 360° anticlockwise?

Several things actually. But I'd say engaging with different concepts of what "God" means was a crucial one.

elated177:


Bias and stories heard? Lol! Lol! Lol! You mean see life from your own little perspective and reject what I have experientially confirmed? No, thanks. Mba!

You aren't really any different from the guys who are opening these kinds of threads. They are not looking for anything like evidence or proof. They are simply looking for whose life and faith they will turn upside down and, by so doing, earn more ranks and, probably, boost their ego.



Be free to hold on to it.

I am also free to hold on to mine. I am also free to share what I have seen, felt, tasted and confirmed and certified to be true. I don't chase shadows. My God did not tell me to seek him in vain.

Lol, do I sound like an unbeliever to you? You're talking to a conscious awareness, as much as you think you know God, my experience is such that you have never imagined or experienced.

Try getting to where I currently am and it will dismantle your life. I relate with people based on what they know and have experienced. You are an unconscious awareness just playing from memory like 99.9% of other humans.

Try breaking the cycles you are currently involved in, then we can talk on same level. Until you get there, I have nothing to say to you that will make sense.

If ever you want to start breaking the cycles you call life, start speaking 50% less, spend 80% of your waking moments alone and engage in at least 5 minutes of daily spiritual practise where you sit in silence and just observe your thoughts without having an opinion about them. Do this 2 times daily for 45 days or once daily for 90 days. You've heard God is stillness all your life, let me show you what stillness is practically. This exercise is even rudimentary, pass it and I will show you more. When Jesus said I am the way, light and truth, no one comes to the Father except through me, I will show you the practical aspect of that scripture.

If your mind and body survives it, you can come back to talk to me about God. Only then we will have something in common to discuss.

SocialJustice:
Lol, do I sound like an unbeliever to you? You're talking to a conscious awareness, as much as you think you know God, my experience is such that you have never imagined or experienced.

Try getting to where I currently am and it will dismantle your life. I relate with people based on what they know and have experienced. You are an unconscious awareness just playing from memory like 99.9% of other humans.

Try breaking the cycles you are currently involved in, then we can talk on same level. Until you get there, I have nothing to say to you that will make sense.

If ever you want to start breaking the cycles you call life, start speaking 50% less, spend 80% of your waking moments alone and engage in at least 5 minutes of daily spiritual practise where you sit in silence and just observe your thoughts without having an opinion about them. Do this 2 times daily for 45 days or once daily for 90 days. You've heard God is stillness all your life, let me show you what stillness is practically. This exercise is even rudimentary, pass it and I will show you more. When Jesus said I am the way, light and truth, no one comes to the Father except through me, I will show you the practical aspect of that scripture.

If your mind and body survives it, you can come back to talk to me about God. Only then we will have something in common to discuss.

Lee lee! He has changed his tongue.

I have not even started talking, sef and they are not happy. I will talk more. What have I even said? I will talk more about the greatness and the awesomeness of the Mighty One of Jacob, my Mighty One, the one and the only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, YHVH Almighty.

Onye conscious awareness! Lee lee!

Wilgrea7:


Several things actually. But I'd say engaging with different concepts of what "God" means was a crucial one.

What kind of relationship did you have with the God whose Scriptures you were quoting in the past?

elated177:


Lee lee! He has changed his tongue.

I have not even started talking, sef and they are not happy. I will talk more. What have I even said? I will talk more about the greatness and the awesomeness of the Mighty One of Jacob, my Mighty One, the one and the only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, YHVH Almighty.

Onye conscious awareness! Lee lee!

OK

elated177:



What kind of relationship did you have with the God whose Scriptures you were quoting in the past?

A relationship based on preconceived notions, generalized vague experiences and a few written hearsay stories where this said God interacted with others, thousands of years ago.

And I'd say that's the case with most, if not all Christians today.

The relationship i have with my parents, siblings and friends is not based on one where I read a letter they wrote to someone else thousands of years ago and pretend like it applies to me.

I talk to my loved ones. They talk to me as well. Not in a vague way, through hidden messages or outdated texts from thousands of years ago. But through direct, and very personal conversation.

I know their favorite color, the things they like and dislike, not because I've read it in some book. But because I've spent actual time with them, and shared mutual experiences with them to know these things about them.

In the case of a God, the story is quite the opposite.

Without any knowledge of the book you call the bible, your "relationship with God" would be a lot different. Probably non-existent even.

If you need to make reference to a book, written by people thousands of years ago about their alleged experiences with a God, then you do not have a relationship with that God.

I'm not Moses, or Joseph, or Abraham. I don't see any talking burning bushes. I don't wrestle with angels. I don't see any seas get split in 2, or suns standing still for 3 days, or frogs dropping from the sky.

I don't have these experiences. And i have no obligation to base my relationship with any deity on hearsay stories which cannot be verified.

And even if these stories were verified.. I'd just be reading about someone else's relationship with said God.

Wilgrea7:

You seem to be making a false equivocation here. Being the ruler or "president" of a council doesn't imply complete control over the council like that of a king would imply.

Deviation from post!

Now you are trying to change the argument from Rule "Authority over land" to "control" whatever it means which is not the issue.

So, the point you prove is that you can not find any land/house which is ruled by 2 landlords. That's All.

Wilgrea7:


A relationship based on preconceived notions, generalized vague experiences and a few written hearsay stories where this said God interacted with others, thousands of years ago.

You didn't have a relationship with him. Mention some of the "generalized vague experiences"?

The Creator of heaven and earth still interacts with his saints, servants, followers and messengers to this day.

Wilgrea7:

And I'd say that's the case with most, if not all Christians today.

The Christians can speak for themselves.

Wilgrea7:

The relationship i have with my parents, siblings and friends is not based on one where I read a letter they wrote to someone else thousands of years ago and pretend like it applies to me.

I talk to my loved ones. They talk to me as well. Not in a vague way, through hidden messages or outdated texts from thousands of years ago. But through direct, and very personal conversation.

I know their favorite color, the things they like and dislike, not because I've read it in some book. But because I've spent actual time with them, and shared mutual experiences with them to know these things about them.

In the case of a God, the story is quite the opposite.

You didn't seek a relationship with him.

Wilgrea7:

Without any knowledge of the book you call the bible, your "relationship with God" would be a lot different. Probably non-existent even.

The things written in the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, are true and real. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't have the Scriptures that we have today. Didn't they experience his greatness?

Wilgrea7:

If you need to make reference to a book, written by people thousands of years ago about their alleged experiences with a God, then you do not have a relationship with that God.

My God didn't tell me to seek him in vain. The proofs of his existence abound. Whether you call his Scripture a book or not doesn't change the importance. The Scriptures of YHVH Almighty contain his Word and his Word is life. His Scriptures are powerful. Even Satan and the demons know this.

Wilgrea7:

I'm not Moses, or Joseph, or Abraham. I don't see any talking burning bushes. I don't wrestle with angels. I don't see any seas get split in 2, or suns standing still for 3 days, or frogs dropping from the sky.

No one has to be. Those great servants had their own experiences according to the will of YHVH Almighty, their God and Father, my God and Father. Today, each saint, priest, servant, follower or messenger of YHVH Almighty, of Yahushua the Messiah, will have his own experience according to the will of the Father.

Wilgrea7:

I don't have these experiences. And i have no obligation to base my relationship with any deity on hearsay stories which cannot be verified.

You never sought any relationship with the Owner of the Scripture that you were quoting back then.

Wilgrea7:

And even if these stories were verified.. I'd just be reading about someone else's relationship with said God.

So, the verification won't even be enough sef! No be today the wind expose una wicked agenda. Lol! Mtcheeeeew! You see what I have been saying? You guys aren't looking for proof or evidence. You are looking for whose life and faith you will destroy and, by doing so, add more ranks and boost your ego. Agents of Satan and the demons.

Dtruthspeaker:


Deviation from post!

Now you are trying to change the argument from Rule "Authority over land" to "control" whatever it means which is not the issue.

So, the point you prove is that you can not find any land/house which is ruled by 2 landlords. That's All.

What are you even saying at this point?

Do you just shout “deviation from post" when you have no logical counterargument?

Do you control what you have no authority over? Doesn't authority imply control?

You're not even making any sense right now. And now you're running back to your already debunked landlord argument.

We were talking about councils.... and now you're shifting it to landlords. And you accuse me of deviation.

elated177:


You didn't have a relationship with him. Mention some of the "generalized vague experiences"?

We all know the generalized vague experiences. Things we attribute to a God. Getting a job we applied for. Winning a grant or award. Surviving a dangerous situation. Getting important help when in need.

Generally, when good things happen, we tend to attribute them to a God answering our prayers or something of the sort.

Although I'm not against the mindset, the same thing literally happens across every other religion. It proves no specific God.

Even the experiences we would deem "supernatural".
Let's say i woke up today, and found a glowing floating cloud in the middle of my room, or I survive getting shot or stabbed miraculously, with no injuries.

What God in particular would this prove? Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Horus? Which one? Without turning to any dusty old religious book, how would I know which God was involved?

The Creator of heaven and earth still interacts with his saints, servants, followers and messengers to this day.

The Christians can speak for themselves.

Please define interact... On a personal level.

Thousands of Christians literally flock in churches each Sunday, waiting for a prophet to tell them something about their lives. Prophecy is a big thing in Christianity.

Have you ever watched a crusade or convention? The man of “God" stands there and says “God told me to tell you.." and the crowd goes wild. It's not just in Africa. Even in other Christian countries, we see things like this.

In a truly personal relationship, i wouldn't need third parties to convey the message from this God. And i most certainly wouldn't need books either. I would just talk to the God directly.

And i ask you again, without any knowledge of the bible, how would your relationship with this “God" be?

You didn't seek a relationship with him.

The things written in the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, are true and real.

I didn't ask if they were true or real. Even if they were (which I doubt), it wouldn't change anything.

Relationships are not built on stories about other people.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't have the Scriptures that we have today. Didn't they experience his greatness?

Exactly. If they didn't need the scriptures to have a relationship with this God, then neither do you, or I.

And I'll say it again. I see no burning bushes. I don't wrestle with angels at night. I don't hear voices telling me “I am the Lord". I don't experience any of that.

I cannot use someone else's story as the basis of my relationship.

My God didn't tell me to seek him in vain. The proofs of his existence abound. Whether you call his Scripture a book or not doesn't change the importance. The Scriptures of YHVH Almighty contain his Word and his Word is life. His Scriptures are powerful. Even Satan and the demons know this.

Congratulations, but this is pretty irrelevant to what I was talking about.

No one has to be. Those great servants had their own experiences according to the will of YHVH Almighty, their God and Father, my God and Father. Today, each saint, priest, servant, follower or messenger of YHVH Almighty, of Yahushua the Messiah, will have his own experience according to the will of the Father.

Are you implying it is his will I don't have any independent experiences that could build a relationship with him? In that case, how is it my fault?

You never sought any relationship with the Owner of the Scripture that you were quoting back then.

I do not care about scripture, because relationships aren't built on letters written about other people's experiences.

So, the verification won't even be enough sef! No be today the wind expose una wicked agenda. Lol! Mtcheeeeew! You see what I have been saying? You guys aren't looking for proof or evidence. You are looking for whose life and faith you will destroy and, by doing so, add more ranks and boost your ego. Agents of Satan and the demons.

Thank you.

Wilgrea7:


We all know the generalized vague experiences. Things we attribute to a God. Getting a job we applied for. Winning a grant or award. Surviving a dangerous situation. Getting important help when in need.

Generally, when good things happen, we tend to attribute them to a God answering our prayers or something of the sort.

Although I'm not against the mindset, the same thing literally happens across every other religion. It proves no specific God.

Even the experiences we would deem "supernatural".
Let's say i woke up today, and found a glowing floating cloud in the middle of my room, or I survive getting shot or stabbed miraculously, with no injuries.

What God in particular would this prove? Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Horus? Which one? Without turning to any dusty old religious book, how would I know which God was involved?



Please define interact... On a personal level.

Thousands of Christians literally flock in churches each Sunday, waiting for a prophet to tell them something about their lives. Prophecy is a big thing in Christianity.

Have you ever watched a crusade or convention? The man of “God" stands there and says “God told me to tell you.." and the crowd goes wild. It's not just in Africa. Even in other Christian countries, we see things like this.

In a truly personal relationship, i wouldn't need third parties to convey the message from this God. And i most certainly wouldn't need books either. I would just talk to the God directly.

And i ask you again, without any knowledge of the bible, how would your relationship with this “God" be?




I didn't ask if they were true or real. Even if they were (which I doubt), it wouldn't change anything.

Relationships are not built on stories about other people.

You slyly ignored everything I wrote there and still repeated all those things. Sorry o! Ndo o!

Wilgrea7:


Exactly. If they didn't need the scriptures to have a relationship with this God, then neither do you, or I.

Bia, wilgrea7, do you think you could put words into my mouth? I didn't say Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't need the Scriptures. I said they didn't have the Scriptures like we do today and still they experienced they greatness and awesomeness of YHVH.

Abraham heard the voice of YHVH Almighty and he obeyed him. Abraham heard, listened and obeyed. So did Isaac and Jacob. Isaac and Jacob also had to work with what Abraham, Isaac's Father and Jacob's grandfather, had to teach them about YHVH Almighty, their God. They listened and obeyed.

Today, the Father has spoken us:

Hebrews 1: In the past YHVH spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

So, everything that a seeker of YHVH Almighty needs to know is written in his Word and it capped with:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, YHVH will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, YHVH will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

What we, his saints, priests, servants, followers and messengers, pray for is his understanding and the strength to obey, which he pours on us abundantly.

Without the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, anyone that seeks him would be lost.

Wilgrea7:

And I'll say it again. I see no burning bushes. I don't wrestle with angels at night. I don't hear voices telling me “I am the Lord". I don't experience any of that.

I have already responded to your assertion. If you don't like it, probably because it didn't fit into your plan, you are free to leave it.

Wilgrea7:

I cannot use someone else's story as the basis of my relationship.



Congratulations, but this is pretty irrelevant to what I was talking about.

Mtcheeeeew!

Wilgrea7:

Are you implying it is his will I don't have any independent experiences that could build a relationship with him? In that case, how is it my fault?

I did not imply anything.

Seek him first. Hear, listen and obey and he will show you whatever he wants you to know about yourself and why he sent you into the world. How do you hear, listen, and obey him? This time, study his Scriptures for yourself. Abstain from sin. Abstain from all forms of sexual immorality. Pray to him for the Spirit of understanding. Do not depend on any individual in this regard.

But, then, you people have an ulterior motive for all these threads that you're opening here and there.

Wilgrea7:

I do not care about scripture, because relationships aren't built on letters written about other people's experiences.

You don't care about his Scriptures? You are not ready. Can one build a castle in the air? Is it possible to erect any building without foundation?
Without the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, you cannot seek him. Every that one needs to know about him is written in his Scriptures.

No one can separate YHVH Almighty from his Word.

Hebrews 1: 3 The Son is the radiance of YHVH's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Wilgrea7:

Thank you.

You are welcome.

elated177:


You slyly ignored everything I wrote there and still repeated all those things. Sorry o! Ndo o!

I answered everything you brought up point by point. If you feel there's something I missed, feel free to specifically point it out, and I'll be happy to address it.

Bia, wilgrea7, do you think you could put words into my mouth? I didn't say Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't need the Scriptures. I said they didn't have the Scriptures like we do today and still they experienced they greatness and awesomeness of YHVH.

Abraham heard the voice of YHVH Almighty and he obeyed him. Abraham heard, listened and obeyed. So did Isaac and Jacob. Isaac and Jacob also had to work with what Abraham, Isaac's Father and Jacob's grandfather, had to teach them about YHVH Almighty, their God. They listened and obeyed.

You seem to be the one trying to beat around the bush here. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses didn't have the scriptures. Granted.

And yet, they still had an experience of this "God". Meaning the scriptures were not a necessary element for having a relationship with God back then.

(That's what the word “need" implies. It's weird I have to explain it at this point)

So why is it no longer the case today? Why do i suddenly need a book to have a relationship with a God, when the very people in the book never had such scripture, and yet still had said better "relationships"?

Today, the Father has spoken us:

Hebrews 1: In the past YHVH spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

So, everything that a seeker of YHVH Almighty needs to know is written in his Word and it capped with:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, YHVH will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, YHVH will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Quoting any scripture is irrelevant in this situation. I don't need a book to tell me what kind of experience I'm expected to have. Abraham didn't rely on a book to tell him what experience he would have. So why should I?

And on that ground, I will say again. If you need a messenger, prophet, servant, book or any third party medium to communicate with this God, or any God at all, then that is NOT direct communication, and that relationship is NOT personal.

If a God cannot talk to me directly in a way that concerns me, independent of any sort of generic book or third party, then that connection is certainly not direct, and certainly not personal.

What we, his saints, priests, servants, followers and messengers, pray for is his understanding and the strength to obey, which he pours on us abundantly.

Without the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, anyone that seeks him would be lost.

Why does your God appear to be hiding himself? What was Moses doing when he revealed himself to him via the burning bush? What scripture was he reading? What scripture did Abraham read? Why do i need a book to tell me about this God? Why can't he reveal himself to me independent of a book?

What kind of a personal relationship depends on a collection of stories about other people's relationship?

I noticed this got a bit too long, so I'll break it into 2 parts

elated177:
I did not imply anything.

Seek him first. Hear, listen and obey and he will show you whatever he wants you to know about yourself and why he sent you into the world. How do you hear, listen, and obey him? This time, study his Scriptures for yourself. Abstain from sin. Abstain from all forms of sexual immorality. Pray to him for the Spirit of understanding. Do not depend on any individual in this regard.

But, then, you people have an ulterior motive for all these threads that you're opening here and there.

How am I supposed to seek this God? Why do I need to read the Bible, and not the Quran or Vedas to find him? Why do I need any book at all to find him? Why is he hidden in the first place?

If he's omnipresent and omnipotent, and indeed wants to know me, then why can't he show himself like he allegedly did in the times of old?

You don't care about his Scriptures? You are not ready. Can one build a castle in the air? Is it possible to erect any building without foundation?
Without the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, you cannot seek him. Every that one needs to know about him is written in his Scriptures.

No one can separate YHVH Almighty from his Word.

Hebrews 1: 3 The Son is the radiance of YHVH's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
You are welcome.

You are right about one thing. I don't care about the biblical scriptures, just the same way I don't care about the Islamic scriptures, or the hindu or Egyptian ones.

It's not because I'm trying to be nonchalant or anything. It's because I don't consider any sort of third parties, as a basis for forming a relationship with anyone.

If I met someone for the first time, I would probably know nothing about them, and they would probably know nothing about me too. And that's fine. As we begin to stay in contact, and hang out, I would begin to know them more, and vice versa. That is how relationships work.

If you read a book about me, or vice versa, that would not be a relationship. That would just be information about me from a book. Information that could very well be wrong. And even if the info is correct, that still doesn't equate to a relationship.

You've been talking about scriptures and prophets and whatnot. The best those provide is information. Not a relationship.

And I will ask you again for the third time.

Without these any knowledge of these books, and these prophets and messengers, would your relationship with this God be the same?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses didn't have these things. Their knowledge of this God came from personal experience. Why does my case have to be different?

Wilgrea7:


How am I supposed to seek this God? Why do I need to read the Bible, and not the Quran or Vedas to find him? Why do I need any book at all to find him? Why is he hidden in the first place?

If he's omnipresent and omnipotent, and indeed wants to know me, then why can't he show himself like he allegedly did in the times of old?



You are right about one thing. I don't care about the biblical scriptures, just the same way I don't care about the Islamic scriptures, or the hindu or Egyptian ones.

It's not because I'm trying to be nonchalant or anything. It's because I don't consider any sort of third parties, as a basis for forming a relationship with anyone.

If I met someone for the first time, I would probably know nothing about them, and they would probably know nothing about me too. And that's fine. As we begin to stay in contact, and hang out, I would begin to know them more, and vice versa. That is how relationships work.

If you read a book about me, or vice versa, that would not be a relationship. That would just be information about me from a book. Information that could very well be wrong. And even if the info is correct, that still doesn't equate to a relationship.

You've been talking about scriptures and prophets and whatnot. The best those provide is information. Not a relationship.

And I will ask you again for the third time.

Without these any knowledge of these books, and these prophets and messengers, would your relationship with this God be the same?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses didn't have these things. Their knowledge of this God came from personal experience. Why does my case have to be different?

Mtcheeeeew!

I didn't even bother reading all the absolute rubbish that you spewed above. I couldn't get past the first and second paragraphs. Utter humbug. Mtcheeeeew!

elated177:



Mtcheeeeew!

I didn't even bother reading the absolute rubbish that you spewed above.

That seems like a “you" problem pal.

Wilgrea7:


I answered everything you brought up point by point. If you feel there's something I missed, feel free to specifically point it out, and I'll be happy to address it.



You seem to be the one trying to beat around the bush here. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses didn't have the scriptures. Granted.

And yet, they still had an experience of this "God". Meaning the scriptures were not a necessary element for having a relationship with God back then.

(That's what the word “need" implies. It's weird I have to explain it at this point)

So why is it no longer the case today? Why do i suddenly need a book to have a relationship with a God, when the very people in the book never had such scripture, and yet still had said better "relationships"?



Quoting any scripture is irrelevant in this situation. I don't need a book to tell me what kind of experience I'm expected to have. Abraham didn't rely on a book to tell him what experience he would have. So why should I?

And on that ground, I will say again. If you need a messenger, prophet, servant, book or any third party medium to communicate with this God, or any God at all, then that is NOT direct communication, and that relationship is NOT personal.

If a God cannot talk to me directly in a way that concerns me, independent of any sort of generic book or third party, then that connection is certainly not direct, and certainly not personal.



Why does your God appear to be hiding himself? What was Moses doing when he revealed himself to him via the burning bush? What scripture was he reading? What scripture did Abraham read? Why do i need a book to tell me about this God? Why can't he reveal himself to me independent of a book?

What kind of a personal relationship depends on a collection of stories about other people's relationship?

I noticed this got a bit too long, so I'll break it into 2 parts

Mtcheeeeew!

Another stretch of rigmarole. I don't have the time to read meaninglessness. Many words with complete emptiness.

You see how empty you sound when you are not doing your regular copy and paste. Repeating meaninglessness like a broken record.

elated177:


Mtcheeeeew!

Another stretch of rigmarole. I don't have the time to read meaninglessness. Many words with complete emptiness.

You see how empty you sound when you are not doing your regular copy and paste. Repeating meaninglessness like a broken record.

I’ll help you out and summarize so you don’t have to suck your teeth.
He said if Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses had personal interactions with Lord God why can’t Wilgrea7?
Why is Lord God now dependent on the Bible when it wasn’t so before?
Also, if Lord God doesn’t want to interact personally with Wilgrea7, he could send manna from heaven or some other miracle.

If Lord God did all the things in the Bible, surely he can do them again.

KnownUnknown:


I’ll help you out and summarize so you don’t have to suck your teeth.
He said if Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses had personal interactions with Lord God why can’t Wilgrea7?
Why is Lord God now dependent on the Bible when it wasn’t so before?
Also, if Lord God doesn’t want to interact personally with Wilgrea7, he could send manna from heaven or some other miracle.

If Lord God did all the things in the Bible, surely he can do them again.

Iberiberism of the worst kind. Mtcheeeeew!

Docile sheep has been indoctrinated with forged and jewish books.

elated177:


Iberiberism of the worst kind. Mtcheeeeew!

Lord God is famous for his Iberiberism. Mtcheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww………..eeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Wilgrea7:

Do you control what you have no authority over?

Do armed robbers and bandits have authority when they invade and control your house and street? No. They don't

There is control without Authority armed robbers prove that but Authority always has control, Landlords prove this.
NO VALID ARGUMENT HERE.

Wilgrea7:

We were talking about councils.... and now you're shifting it to landlords. And you accuse me of deviation.

We were talking "Rulers". See it

Wilgrea7:
...Being the ruler or "president" of a council doesn't imply complete control over the council like that of a king would imply...

AND A LANDLORD IS A RULER OF HIS HOUSE so I am within the post!

Dtruthspeaker:


Do armed robbers and bandits have authority when they invade and control your house and street? No. They don't

There is control without Authority armed robbers prove that but Authority always has control, Landlords prove this.
NO VALID ARGUMENT HERE.

We were talking "Rulers". See it


AND A LANDLORD IS A RULER OF HIS HOUSE so I am within the post!

The case of armed robbers and bandits is not similar to that of a king or council. But point taken. You're still changing the argument.

We were talking about how rulership is not always singular, for which I gave councils as an example. You made the statement that councils have presidents or leaders, which would make rulership singular again.

To which I objected and clearly showed that the distribution of power among councils doesn't give the "rulers" of said council complete control, or authority. And that the authority of the council, still remained within the council itself, rather than being centered on one person. It still remained plural instead of singular.

You're yet to debunk that statement. Instead, you went on to talk about landlords. When that's clearly not what we were talking about in the first place.

So I take it that you have no rebuttal, and you accept that rulership, whether you want to use the word "authority" or "control", is not always singular.

A landlord is not a council. Don't try to change the goalpost.

Wilgrea7:

The case of armed robbers and bandits is not similar to that of a king or council. But point taken. You're still changing the argument.

Creep. Your words and my response to it is clear. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO BE A CREEP AS YOU DO WHEN YOU SEE YOU ARE LOSING THE ARGUMENT

Your post and my response in the bold says it all.

Wilgrea7:

Do you control what you have no authority over?

[b]Do armed robbers and bandits have authority when they invade and control your house and street? No. They don't

Wilgrea7:
...To which I objected and clearly showed that the distribution of power among councils doesn't give the "rulers" of said council complete control, or authority.

And your objection is crushed because YOU ARE CRAFTILY MOVING IT FROM THE THRUTH WHICH YOU SAW AND HAVE ADMITTED, AS I TOLD YOU THAT EVEN THE COUNCIL HAS A SINGLE RULER (WHICH IS THE ISSUE) [/b]to [b]exercise/distribution of powers (control) WHICH IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Hence as I told you

Deviation from post!

Now you are trying to change the argument from Rule "Authority over land" to "control"

Secondly, a council is a bad example because in a council, all the players are equal, as it is a gathering of people who know that they have no authority over other people and vice versa but in agreement they have agreed to come together co-operate with each other in pursuit and an agreed common interest.

And all the parties are of equal authority. No party is higher than the other.

BUT IN TRUE RULERSHIP, A RULER IS NOT EQUAL TO HIS SUBJECTS.

THE RULER IS HIGHER THAN THE RULED/GOVERNED WHICH IS WHERE LANDLORD IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

So, you have not countered, if anything, you have rather admitted that even your bad example of Council, still also has A Single Person who Leads and Rules it.

Wilgrea7:

I'll give a simple example. The EU parliament. Even though the parliament has a president

So you are yet to prove a case of A Rulership having more than one Rulers.

Dtruthspeaker:


Creep. Your words and my response to it is clear. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO BE A CREEP AS YOU DO WHEN YOU SEE YOU ARE LOSING THE ARGUMENT

Your post and my response in the bold says it all.


[b]Do armed robbers and bandits have authority when they invade and control your house and street? No. They don't

I agreed with you on the armed robber scenario. And like I said earlier, it is still a deviation from our discussion about councils. In the context of our discussion about councils, authority, control, and rulership are synonymous.

In the case of an armed robber, force is used to take control from whoever the former rulers were. The use of force (like in the case of a bandit) is not being taken into consideration when talking about the distribution of power among council members.

This is clearly an attempt at strawmanning. Focus on what we're talking about and stop trying to deviate.

And your objection is crushed because YOU ARE CRAFTILY MOVING IT FROM THE THRUTH WHICH YOU SAW AND HAVE ADMITTED, AS I TOLD YOU THAT EVEN THE COUNCIL HAS A SINGLE RULER (WHICH IS THE ISSUE) [/b]to [b]exercise/distribution of powers (control) WHICH IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Hence as I told you

Deviation from post!

Now you are trying to change the argument from Rule "Authority over land" to "control"

I've explained multiple times, that the role of a council president is not in any way similar to the role of a king, or a landlord. I gave you clear examples of the EU parliament, the nigerian Senate, and the house of congress in the US. Yet, you insist of making a big deal out of words like "authority over land" and "control".

You always seem to make a big deal out of words like this as an excuse to ignore the main point of an argument when you have no rebuttal. You did the exact same thing with the argument about God being "a" person and "the" person. You're not slick.

Secondly, a council is a bad example because in a council, all the players are equal, as it is a gathering of people who know that they have no authority over other people and vice versa but in agreement they have agreed to come together co-operate with each other in pursuit and an agreed common interest.

And all the parties are of equal authority. No party is higher than the other.

Now you're finally beginning to get it. You understand that the council analogy beats your "rulership is singular" narrative, and now you're calling it a bad example. It's funny seeing you going in circles like this.

BUT IN TRUE RULERSHIP, A RULER IS NOT EQUAL TO HIS SUBJECTS.

THE RULER IS HIGHER THAN THE RULED/GOVERNED WHICH IS WHERE LANDLORD IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

Do the councils (as a whole) not rule over the people which they govern? Are the residents of the EU states not subject to the decisions made by the council?

So, you have not countered, if anything, you have rather admitted that even your bad example of Council, still also has A Single Person who Leads and Rules it.

So you are yet to prove a case of A Rulership having more than one Rulers.

You're the one who seems to want to be going in circles here.

Wilgrea7:

I agreed with you on the armed robber scenario. ..

Then why did you bring it back up? Was it not to distract us from the issue of Rulership, so that another deviating argument would flow from there?

So I am waiting on you to show a proper case of where a land has 2 kings!

Wilgrea7:

I've explained multiple times, that the role of a council president is not in any way similar to the role of a king,

And I have explained council means equals and therefore it does not satisfy the requirements of Rulership.

Therefore a bad example.

So find a good example that suits the requirements of Rulership as seen in the cases of Kings and Landlords which you can use to prove your claim, if you can