Posted on 02/28/2005 5:27:26 PM PST by TheTruthess
How does one know the correct nature of God, and how would one be mistaken about the nature of God?
How could something pose as God?
How is someones imagination considered to be a god? Wouldn't they just be delusional?
and how would one be mistaken about the nature of God?
If in fact God exists, then He is one thing and not another. If God did in fact become incarnate, then he did not not become incarnate. To believe the former would be to correctly understand one particular aspect of His nature and to believe the latter would be tobe mistaken about one particular aspect of His nature.
How could something pose as God?
Ask Jim Jones. Alternatively, if in fact purely spiritual entities other than God exist, it is logically possible that one or more of them could manifest itself to men, and claim deity. Such claim would be false, of course, but many people might believe it.
How is someones imagination considered to be a god?
You have slightly misquoted me. A figment of someone's imagination could take the form of a god if that person (or anyone else) wanted it to.
Wouldn't they just be delusional?
It could either be a case of delusion, or a case of deifying natural phenomena.
ping
Different people reason differently and probably experience revelation differently also.
Why would God be limited to being one thing or another?
Ask Jim Jones....is meaningless. If spiritual entities exist...anyone can say if this, then that..means nothing
Wouldn't that figment exist only in that persons mind?
Is a figment a natural phenomena, can it be observed by others?
Beyond that, your post is gibberish.
Do you believe that someone can come back from the dead, walk on water, virgin birth, the Trinity, forgive your sins?
Do you believe that "A" and 'Not A" can both be true? As I said, if you do we have no basis whatsoever for discussion. I shall answer no more of your questions until you have answered that one, clearly, either "yes" or "no". If you don't understand the question, I suggest that you take up a study of symbolic logic.
Being dead and being undead aren't contradictions?
Being the Father and the Son, are not contradictions?
I guess you don't believe that God is all-powerful, either, and capable of anything.
I cannot comprehend A and NOTA being both true, just as I cannot comprehend resurrection or the concept of the Trinity, yet I believe that God can make it happen if He wanted to.
I will understand completely if you do not answer anymore, though.
What does it mean to be dead? Answer: to be dead means that one's soul has separated from one's body. In the case of a human soul, the soul does not cease to exist at that point. Hence it can be rejoined to the body ... indeed the body can be re-created if necessary. No contradiction here. You just didn't know what "dead" means.
Being the Father and the Son, are not contradictions?
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son, etc. All three persons share the Divine Nature. No contradiction here, either.
You can believe, or not, as you see fit. (I would hope and pray, though, that you do somehow come to believe in God.) However, you seem to be under the impression that your questions are new; that Christians have never considered them before. In fact, the Church addressed and answered these issues almost 2000 years ago. Those ancient, primitive Greeks and Romans weren't as primitive as some would have you believe.
I cannot comprehend A and NOTA being both true, ... yet I believe that God can make it happen if He wanted to.
I believe that God is indeed all Power, but also all Truth. God is not the father of lies ... that's the other guy. A contradiction is a violation of Truth.
My apologies for not knowing in advance, your definitions. This clarifies everything.
I have never said or inferred that I do not believe in God.
I realise my questions are not new, just as I realise that they have also never been answered...and probably never will.
I also believe, that since God created all...He also created the other guy, and all that that entails.
Very likely, and also that Mohammad came later and his truth trumphs over past truths. Another arguement is that Jesus spoke through his gospel writers while the Archangel Gabriel spoke directly to Mohommad, leaving out the possibility of interpretation. But who is closer to the Word of G-d is the one most in favor if life.
God's is kind to people all over the earth.
In the past he overlooked foolishness, but now He is commanding men everywhere to repent. He has given testimony about this to everyone by raising Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.
Thanks, it seems that a persons' religion isn't important to God, just their sincerity.
1) It's not my definition of "dead" ... I more or less got it from Aquinas. I find it very helpful in clearing up much confusion regarding "life-after-death".
2) Your beliefs regarding the nature of the Deity apparently differ in some particulars from mine. Logically, at least one of us is wrong ... (A therefore not NOTA). To what extent that matters is an entirely separate discussion.
3) There's a difference between answering a question and answering it to literally everyone's satisfaction. When the questions touch on matters that cannot be known apart from revelation, Answers to satisfy all are probably humanly impossible.
4) Yes, God did create, the other guy, gave him free will, and all that entails. That, too, is an entirely separate discussion.
You don't have to be a muslim to believe that.
I believe people experience revelation differently, that is why there are differing religious beliefs.
I really don't think logic (as we know it) fits in anywhere.
True, however the article specifically discusses Muslims, and those I've spoken with hold this position. I don't know if that's standard teaching within Islam.
I wouldn't say their sincerity is what matters either.
What matters in their real faith in His resurrected Son, Jesus the Messiah.
He who believes on the Son has life; he who does not believe shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Granted the article talks about Muslims. I guess I was quick to respond because, as one converting to Judaism,
I hold the same position. In addition, so does most every Jew I know.
Why? If God answers someone's prayers, then doesn't that mean that God recognises that person as believing in Him, and being able to address Him in their prayers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.