Can there be an in-between?

Aw, come on, you're either ignorant or stupid, and I hope it's the former for your sake. Since when was wisdom anything more than abstract. If the God you believe in is physical in any way (which he must be if he created the Earth btw (and if he actually said anything)), he could have only have come from something physical, too. Common sense really.
'God' might as well have said that he came from hope, knowledge, passion, or anger... but none of those would make sense - why should Wisdom. You're just talking nonsense.

I have my own gripe. Why, whenever someone comes up with something to disprove the Bible, do people argue back with the Bible not being inerrant and things like that - that makes the entire Christian Religion unfalsifiable when questioning the Bible itself. It's incredibly irritating and these kind of topics always manage to get me wound up. Simply because most Christians on these topics are unbelievably condescending and... just stupid. Not all, I grant you, but many.
The problem is, there are errors in the Bible. Very many errors... but you will only use it as an excuse, when you should easily see that it is actually a weapon that can only be used against you?
[Speaking more rhetorically now eek]

*calms down*

 

FourFeetOver

You don't look big by calling people stupid. Just a heads up.

God is not physical you idiotic moron.

That's like saying gas HAS to be solid to make anything solid. Don't be stupid.

Ever wonder why there are errors in the "English" bible or anyother bible for that matter? How about the Hebrew bible? Don't hear any complaints about that do you? Ever wonder why?



Why should wisdom you ask? The bible says God came from wisdom. Wisdom is God and God is wisdom.

That's the problem with Humans; They think everything HAS to be physical.

 

reddogwwa

Please tell me how Archeology and science uncovered lots of Facts and Truths about the bible. Not only that, the bible is the MOST accurate book in the world.

Oh by the way, most of those profits never met each other. Also one of them never knew who Jesus was nor ever heard about him in till God gave him a vision.

*sorry about double post, lagged*

 

logical it dosent exist but i still beleive in God we cant proof anything

its our opinions

 

This is not a fact, the only evidence to back up that quote is the "bible".
My point the only evidence that backs up the bible is the bible.
EDIT: I'm not saying the bible is totally false, There might have been certain things that happened but the truth was stretched in my opinion. Stretched/taken out of context/etc.

Thats exactly my point though. Each one of those people have a different perspective/interpretation of the events that "went" on.

 

reddogwwa:

There are facts OUTSIDE the bible. That's unrelated to the bible.

 

Please tell me some of these facts. I'm interested to hear what you call facts.

 

I never expected to look big by calling people stupid... then again, you called me stupid (as much as I did to you) so I guess we're even, huh?

Okay, three things here really.

1/ Gas is entirely physical, even if it's not solid. I don't really know what you're saying, there must be something that I missed.

2/ I don't really care about which interpretations and translations of the Bible have errors or not, my point was only demonstrating how I get irritated when people use it to defend what they're saying. I believe that there is probably a better response than saying 'Yeah but the Bible has some errors and/or you can't take it literally' etc.

3/ You assume that I believe everything to be physical? Entirely not, quite the reverse. I believe in the existence of many things that aren't physical (the sentient mind as an example), but if God isn't physical, then what is he, by definition? Now I'm curious and somewhat confused - for God to have done the things that the Bible says he has done, how could he not exist physically?
Actually, I'm going to take a step back. He doesn't have to exist physically, technically, as long as there is a form or object that can manifest his will physically. Then, technically, his actions can be carried out. The same way that it's not me typing these words; it is my fingers. However, the reason they do this is my will. I hope you're following me at the moment, as I'm only supporting what you are saying at the moment.
The problem is then, that God needs physical tools to carry out his will. (Examples. Speaking, Creating, Destroying)

So, I can accept that God doesn't have to be physical, so long as you can provide an object that he uses to do these things. It is literally impossible for him to have literally spoken to a human if he doesn't have any way of doing it. That would be like a brain jumping out and performing all of the actions itself, without the body - it just can't do it. I can turn this easily into a metaphor, ha. See, now I'm enjoying this...
So, in this metaphor, things are as follows.
The consciousness, the mind, is God.
The body (brain, organs, appendages) are... what?
This is why God has to either be physical, or have some form of physical tools. Or else he can't have a physical impact. Of course, this is just my opinion.

The problem with all of this is that God being God, the all powerful being, can actually disregard every law of science and even common sense in order to exist, because, as soon as you accept that he exists, his existence can no longer be denied with these things.

In conclusion, I've come to realise that there is absolutely no reason for me to argue on this front. Because anyone who believes in an omnipotent God also can rectify anything because of God being all powerful. So I may chip in with thoughts and theories for fun, but I won't actually trying to use them, because I know there is no point and I never enjoy that part too much anyway.

 

I think there is a inbetween. You could believe that there was a god that created the eath but then died and left us to deal with the earth or universe. Or you could also believe that god was once living and running and still is but will not be everlasting and will soon enough die off.

 

The Bible has internal contradictions, so not all of it can be true at the same time.

None of it is necessarily true either, though. I've lived my life fine without using the "facts" or "morals" of the bible.

I still have to know it though, to read classical literature. Bible is everywhere.

 

god could have been a well repected person thousands of years ago, that started is own religion in tern he might of altered history to suport it.......just an idea

 

Maybe because nobody will bother learning Hebrew just to find something to complain about? The only people who know Hebrew today are people who learns it because they already believe in the Bible.

How do you know this? Were you there?



I'm still waiting for one claim that you can back up in any way.

 

I say there isn't an in between, believe or not. I believe

 

we shall never know untill we pass through heavens gates

 

Well, I personally believe that God exists, but my friend has an interesting theory...

God created the Earth and such, but did not cause earthquakes and other things. He just made it and left. So, kind of like a lazy god.

 

Is a cat dead or alive?

Is there an in-between? No.

 

Nordic mythology -- Odin's dilemma

edit: Damn, I hate those "page 1;2;3" things

 

Shredder is correct,
if you picture this problem as a piece of paper, one side is red one is green, the green side believes in god the red side are athiests, if the paper is split at exactly 50% fallign to each color, how and where is the in-between.

 

Does anyone watch the Simpsons? According to Lisa, Buddhism believes in a force, rather than a creator god. Isn't this in between?