Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

Sane, logical people.

We have senses.

- "God... I felt him!"
- "Really? Was he hot?"
- "No, not that kind of 'felt'. Like, in my heart."
- "Did it disrupt your heart's normal beating pattern? When a foreign object enters the heart, that can be fatal!"
- "No, no, not my physical heart."
- "So your emotional heart."

And we're back to being sensed mentally only.

So long as it wasn't sensed tangibly, it was believed mentally. Not that difficult of a concept.
 
Last edited:
GWAP said:
so god exists in a location in space-time?

i thought he was omnipotent and omnipresent?

wouldn't everything in existence be of god ?

like... the atomic structure and forces that exist only exist as an expression of God?
the bible was written by human men... verified fact....
Click to expand...

From what I gather he's far away in the sense that we as humans cannot fathom/comprehend Him. Not that there's a measurable distance between the earth and whatever Location God is. Which doesn't take away from the claim that he's omnipotent and omnipresent.

According to the what I posted the two otherparts of the trinity aren't of God they are God. Like I said I'm not here to enter the debate. Just trying to put in more familiar terms how Christians view the trinity and how based on that its not polytheism.
 
DarthSka said:
Sane, logical people.

We have senses.

- "God... I felt him!"
- "Really? Was he hot?"
- "No, not that kind of 'felt'. Like, in my heart."
- "Did it disrupt your heart's normal beating pattern? When a foreign object enters the heart, that can be fatal!"
- "No, no, not my physical heart."
- "So your emotional heart."

And we're back to being sensed mentally only.

So long as it wasn't sensed tangibly, it was believed mentally. Not that difficult of a concept.
Click to expand...

Someone could say that a sermon they heard made the hairs on the back of their neck stand up was Gods presence. Is that still mental? How they chose to perceive Gods presence is on them.
 
"From what I gather" is perfectly fine...


... for you.

But as far as telling others he's omnipresent, you need to show them how he is both so far out that he can't be fathomed, and also right in the room, always. That's omnipresent. That includes being present when little kids are raped and infants are beaten to death.

What you've gathered hasn't been thought out very deeply, my friend; it has simply been presented, and gathered.
 
Last edited:
jdfrenchbread23 said:
DarthSka said:
Sane, logical people.

We have senses.

- "God... I felt him!"
- "Really? Was he hot?"
- "No, not that kind of 'felt'. Like, in my heart."
- "Did it disrupt your heart's normal beating pattern? When a foreign object enters the heart, that can be fatal!"
- "No, no, not my physical heart."
- "So your emotional heart."

And we're back to being sensed mentally only.

So long as it wasn't sensed tangibly, it was believed mentally. Not that difficult of a concept.
Click to expand...

Someone could say that a sermon they heard made the hairs on the back of their neck stand up was Gods presence. Is that still mental? How they chose to perceive Gods presence is on them.
Click to expand...
And I could say that my fridge keeps things cold because of god. That doesn't make it so. Fact is that my fridge stays cold because of insulation and freon. If I'm unaware of that and say that it was god, that doesn't mean it was.

There's a reason our hairs stand up.

Now if someone were to say, "YOUR hairs may have stood up because of change in temperature or because of nerves, but MINE stood up because of his presence," if they expect that to be accepted by anyone logical, intelligent, and rational, they're going to need to support that he was present.

Otherwise, it's back to just mental. "It happened because I believe it did."

No more, no less.
 
DarthSka said:
"From what I gather" is perfectly fine...


... for you.

But as far as telling others he's omnipresent, you need to show them how he is both so far out that he can't be fathomed, and also right in the room, always. That's omnipresent. That includes being present when little kids are raped and infants are beaten to death.

What you've gathered hasn't been thought out very deeply, my friend; it has simply been presented, and gathered.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to prove anything. People were having trouble understanding why Christians think they aren't worshipping multiple gods when they talk about the trinity. I gave an example of how A christian explained it that made sense. Not in terms of it being an absolute truth that proves Gods existence, but allowing me or anyone to see why God isn't "gods" from a christian perspective.
 
DarthSka said:
And I could say that my fridge keeps things cold because of god. That doesn't make it so. Fact is that my fridge stays cold because of insulation and freon. If I'm unaware of that and say that it was god, that doesn't mean it was.

There's a reason our hairs stand up.

Now if someone were to say, "YOUR hairs may have stood up because of change in temperature or because of nerves, but MINE stood up because of his presence," if they expect that to be accepted by anyone logical, intelligent, and rational, they're going to need to support that he was present.

Otherwise, it's back to just mental. "It happened because I believe it did."

No more, no less.
Click to expand...

That maybe all true but what I'm saying is if that's what they believe is going on, for them that's what's going on. Just like how some people believe global warming is human caused and others believe it's a natural cycle the earth goes through.
But like I said I'm not here to debate. Lord knows I'm not as knowledgeable as others on the scripture.

I just don't see the point of back and forths like the ones that keep popping up here. It's one thing if people are coming together to share/compare views but both sides are trying to prove the other wrong or right or whatever and neither side is ever going to be able to do that. Both sides are claiming they are right and both sides are asking the other side to prove them wrong, which again isn't going to happen. Just like you say it's the other sides job to prove Gods existence the other side could easily make the claim that since those that believe in a God some form far out number those who don't it's their job to prove He doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
DarthSka said:
I was avoiding it simply as a preemptive strike. If I say, "It was written by men," you'll say, "No, it was written by God." So to move past that matter of semantics, I said 'scribed'.

As in, "Fine, it was written by God. But at the very least, it was scribed by men."

To answer that last question: yes. I'm contending that the bible is from the minds of much earlier man, man who was fat leases intelligent than us.

There are 2 positions in there, both of which can be proved. The rebuttal is, "The Bible was recorded by those less intelligent men, but the words were FROM God," and that position is nowhere close to be proven, or even supported by anything other than belief (which again, is in the mind).
Click to expand...

Ultimately, above the human authors, the Bible was written by God. Second Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Bible was "breathed out" by God. 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 discusses where the Bible came from as well. God superintended the human authors of the Bible so that, while using their own writing styles and personalities, they still recorded exactly what God intended. The Bible was not dictated by God, but it was perfectly guided and entirely inspired by Him. The writers even tell you that. "And the Lord said" and "Thus says the Lord" appears over and over in the Bible.

How does I does human intelligence affect the message presented in the Bible?

Fulfilled prophecy and the unity of scriptures are evidence to support that the writings are ultimately from God.
 
Wat?

u could say everything ever was guided by "god " or the "universe"


U could say harry potter was ultimately written by "god" and billions of years from now a primitive species will find volumes of harry potter all over the world and think voldemort is "the devil" and harry potter is a savior.

God created the sun after 4 days? Wat is a day lol. How did he know.

The bible is just a book.
 
sckid20 said:
Wat?

u could say everything ever was guided by "god " or the "universe"


U could say harry potter was ultimately written by "god" and billions of years from now a primitive species will find volumes of harry potter all over the world and think voldemort is "the devil" and harry potter is a savior.

God created the sun after 4 days? Wat is a day lol. How did he know.

The bible is just a book.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. You Harry Potter analogy is flawed in multiple ways. Here's just one. There have been over 25,000 archeological digs that support matters discussed in the Bible. That confirm and affirm that people, places and events dicussed in tge Bible existed and actually occured. Is there any archeological evidence to show Harry Potter's actual existence? Or Voldemort?
 
GirlThatsBlanco said:
You're the one that brought up the topic of Jesus' name, yet you have not shown how different languages change HIS nature or the meaning of HIS name. Scroll up and see where I show you that his nature and meaning have not changed with the use of different languages. It seems like you want to change the focus since you have yet to support evidence to your original claim. Once again, focus on the topic you started which is the name of Jesus.
Click to expand...

No, you asked what's different in the translations. Well the name of Jesus for starters
 
BLASTERCOMBO said:
No, you asked what's different in the translations. Well the name of Jesus for starters
Click to expand...

Yes, we have already discussed that different words that mean the same thing are used when translating from one language to another. Thats generally how the translation process works. The question is how has the translation of the name of Jesus changed the meaning of HIS name and/or His nature? I showed you it doesn't.
 
GirlThatsBlanco said:
Yes, we have already discussed that different words that mean the same thing are used when translating from one language to another. Thats generally how the translation process works. The question is how has the translation of the name of Jesus changed the meaning of HIS name and/or His nature? I showed you it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Now take the words that DONT have direct translation and is left to interpretation. You act like it's all so cut and dry yet different versions of the bible aren't even exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
GirlThatsBlanco said:
Apples to oranges. You Harry Potter analogy is flawed in multiple ways. Here's just one. There have been over 25,000 archeological digs that support matters discussed in the Bible. That confirm and affirm that people, places and events dicussed in tge Bible existed and actually occured. Is there any archeological evidence to show Harry Potter's actual existence? Or Voldemort?
Click to expand...

Im saying there are probably stories in the bible that are true but imo were a little exaggerated at the time for entertainment or just exaggerated over time.
Like for example maybe there was a huge flood and a farmer built a boat to save his animals turned into noahs ark.

If there were 100% real archeological findings of miraculous events in the bible we wouldnt even be having arguments about religion.

Let me ask you this though... if you were not religous or did not believe in the bible do you think that you would be a better or worse human being?
 
anyone kno how much he has on his jet yet or did he cop already ? 
nerd.gif
 
BLASTERCOMBO said:
Thanks. Now take the words that DONT have direct translation and is left to interpretation. You act like it's all so cut and dry yet different versions of the bible aren't even exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I never said that. I thought you and I were discussing the translation of the name Jesus. That is the topic that you brought up. You seemed like you had an issue with the translation of the name of Jesus meaning something other than the name of Yeshua. I just asked you to explain why....but you haven't.
 
puffishurr said:
He called out for this BS by Kirk Franklin and he dropped his pursuit of it.
Click to expand...

Someone's salty...


“I want to say something about Kirk Franklin coming out against Creflo Dollar. Listen, Kirk is no better than Creflo when it comes to character. We were invited to the ‘Sunday Best’ show by Kirk’s team and we travel 8 hours to get there. Now keep in mind, they called us twice in advance to make sure we were coming. Well, when we got there we were not able to go inside because they had over-booked the taping. So we traveled all that distance for nothing … some even took off work to come. Well, Kirk came out and told us that he was sorry and that was it. He didn’t offer us gas, room, dinner or nothing but he has the nerve to talk about character. Man please, he has got to be kidding me .So let me get in on this conversation about character I will tell Kirk he has no room to throw stones.” #AllLivesMatterBlackLivesMatter #JohnnyTyroneStringfield
 
sckid20 said:
Im saying there are probably stories in the bible that are true but imo were a little exaggerated at the time for entertainment or just exaggerated over time.
Like for example maybe there was a huge flood and a farmer built a boat to save his animals turned into noahs ark.

If there were 100% real archeological findings of miraculous events in the bible we wouldnt even be having arguments about religion.

Let me ask you this though... if you were not religous or did not believe in the bible do you think that you would be a better or worse human being?
Click to expand...

So your analogy doesn't apply? How do you come to your own conclusion what portions of the Bible are real, not real or exaggerated for entertainment purposes?

A miracle to me may possibly not be a miracle to you. For instance, the creation and everything created is a miracle to me. That may or may not be the case with you.

Your last question Is difficult to answer. Religious is a broad term. Atheist can be religious. Hindus can be religious. Muslims can be religious. Plus, the term better is relative to one opinion. Better to who? Me? God? You? My neighbors?
 
GirlThatsBlanco said:
I never said that. I thought you and I were discussing the translation of the name Jesus. That is the topic that you brought up. You seemed like you had an issue with the translation of the name of Jesus meaning something other than the name of Yeshua. I just asked you to explain why....but you haven't.
Click to expand...

Who said I took issue with it? You're throwing up the blinders. The issue is with translation in general. The two languages in which the bible was founded on contain words that are not in the English language. When that's the case those words are then "translated" as INTERPRETED by the translator. You do that enough times and the entire text holds a completely different meaning.

Funny you claim archeologist findings help support the bible. I could say the same for ancient Mayan practice, Egyptian worship, and Greek and roman mythology.
 
Last edited:
sckid20 said:
Better to you
Click to expand...

I am better with Christ as my Savior than without out him because mainly of the salvation he has provided me. God's teachings of how I was created to live have been nothing, but positive for my personal life, my family and marriage. I used to live a life apart from God, but it didn't work for me.
 
GirlThatsBlanco said:
I am better with Christ as my Savior than without out him because mainly of the salvation he has provided me. God's teachings of how I was created to live have been nothing, but positive for my personal life, my family and marriage. I used to live a life apart from God, but it didn't work for me.
Click to expand...

Just a question, do you serve God for fear of eternal burning, or for the eternal life/salvation? Is it selfish to serve God for the purpose of your benefit?
 
GirlThatsBlanco said:
I am better with Christ as my Savior than without out him because mainly of the salvation he has provided me. God's teachings of how I was created to live have been nothing, but positive for my personal life, my family and marriage. I used to live a life apart from God, but it didn't work for me.
Click to expand...

Honestly that was a loaded question and i was gonna say something really mean lol but it seems that youre really passionate about your beliefs and have a good understanding of them and thats a really a good thing imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom