A Question for Theists...

[SA Huguenot]

There was, but it was suppressed according to Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess. Just one of many scholars who has discussed this concept. The Old Testament is more involved with it, but there are hints in the New Testament as well.

WoW!!!
I read the Bible about 20 times, and summarised it, and I never saw anything you are refering to?
Hints?
let me give you a hint.
If God speaks about Wisdom in Proverbs as being a female, it is not a Hint that God has a wife.
I will await your hint from the NT.
And I honestly hope you do not confuce the Bride of Christ, as the Wife of God.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I didn't ask for bible verses. What I'm asking is, how can YOU tell the difference if the scriptures is true or false?

Ex: How did you come to conclusion that the verse above is true. How do you know that the "formula" of Deuteronomy 18: 22, is the correct formula to establish who was a true representative of god?

At least as far as I understand what you said, you must first already believe that it was true before you even use the "formula" to examine the scripture. It's circular.

And supposed the "formula" is how to determine true messengers, then that would make Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and any other who claim to be a prophet true as well, since they speak of future events that have not occurred yet but may still happen in the future. And how about the fulfilment of a prophecy? It must again be circular because if the the scriptures of a proposed prophet was a lie, there wouldn't be any way to examine it. Using the scriptures as evidence determined that it's ture, would again be circular.

let me clarify.
In order for any person to claim that he is a prophet, I have the right to test such a person.
He will have to give a prophecy of short term, to enable me to verify that he is able to provide evidence that God speaks through him.

In the case of Muhammad, he was tested by the Jewish tribes around him where someone told a silly story, such as Duhl Quarnain who walked to the East and saw the sun rose over people who got very warm, and then walked to the west, and saw the sun set in a muddy pool of water. The Jews then asked Muhammad to tell them about Zul Quarnain.
Poor old Muhammad was so gullable, he realy thought there was such a man, and pretended to receive a revelation and relayed the story as he heard.
This was why the Jews rejected him, and why he eventually attacked and destroyed them all.

On Joseph Smith.
He could not give a single short term prophecy, and it was not required from these gullable followers he had.
His long term prophecies are also incomprehensible, and the few that does make sense, was already proven to be false.

Now, I never said that you should first believe then use the formula to determine if someone is a prophet.

No pal, I would expect any God to prove his existance to humankind.
I found only one logical test in all the religions I came across, and it is the Biblical one in Deut 18: 18-22.
This made me realise that If I was God, and I had to use men to act as my mouthpiece, I would also have given the normal person the right to test what the prophet says.
In this case, If someone claim to be a representative of God's revelation, let he prove himself.
Tell me what will happen tomorrow.

This is why I adore the Bible.
It was constructed by men under these rules, and if anyone attempted to fool the congregation of the nation, he was playing with his own life.
Thats why I say.
The Bible is true.

 

[SA Huguenot]

But you do exist. And your god doesn't exist. So you're back to square one, how would you be able to know that your god doesn't exist?

lets get this sorted out for once and for all.
If there is a God, I would expect him to reveal himself to me, or to talk to me.
Now lets leave personal experience out of the equation and take what I learned from the Bible.
God did walk with His creation in a paradise of an earth in the beginning, but Man lost his inocence, and became corrupt and was removed from God, for God can not be in the presence of sin and corruption.
Not because there is something short of the omnipotence of God, but because corrupt man will simply die in the face of God's full glory.
Therefore, we can not be in God's presence anymore, we will burn up and die!
Then God visited his creation in the form of an Angel, where the angelic body contained the Word, or Jesus.
This angel appeared to Moses, Abraham and many other.
God eventually appeared in full glory to Moses, but He had to protect Moses and covered him with His hand.
God also appeared to Israel, but they told God not to speak to them directly, for they were terrified of His light and voice.
Then God made the rule of speaking through a prophet.

The above is a very logical explanation of how God actually interacted with His creation, but we rejected Him in this act.
Then God came to his creation in the shape on a normal man, proving that he is God with miracles, and prophecies, which was by the way immediately recognised by the priests.
Now, they hated Jesus for informing them of the things they were guilty off. They just could not BS Him.

Now, if I were to live with a closed mind, I will reject all these claims from the Bible.
But, If I were to think about it in a critical manner, I will have to conclude.
If I was God, I would have done the same.
Therefore, you want to know how one can prove the existance of God.

Easy, Just remember that He even came to Earth as a Man to be with you and to save you from eternal corruption.
What more do you want.
I have a God who made it all, walked with us, was rejected by us, who came to me as a man, who was killed for doing so, who now returned to heaven, and reveals himself through His Spirit and intellect.

The choice is yours!
Accept this, or reject it all.

 

[SA Huguenot]

He exist in the heart he doesn't exist at all. Why are some theist so afraid to discuss the hypothetical non-ecistence of god? Or are they too dumb to understand the question? If you are too stupid to understand that if doesn't exist at all, then god can't exist in any way shape or form at all no matter what excuse you use. And if you don't even know how to tell the difference in a hypothetical situation, it's reasonable to conclude that you don't know it in real life either.

Well, if we leave the namecalling out of your posts, it is actually an interesting claim you made.
And it also displays how ignorant you want to be, not how you are, but how you want to be.
You demand that "God can not exist in any way shape or form at all no matter what excuse you use"
Realy?
So who was Jesus.
Who appeared to Moses?
To Israel?

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

WoW!!!
I read the Bible about 20 times, and summarised it, and I never saw anything you are refering to?
Hints?
let me give you a hint.
If God speaks about Wisdom in Proverbs as being a female, it is not a Hint that God has a wife.
I will await your hint from the NT.
And I honestly hope you do not confuce the Bride of Christ, as the Wife of God.

It is a long and fascinating discussion. I will try to do a Cliff Notes kind of version for the mean time.

 

[night912]

Yes, memory. The fact that most will say “I slept blissfully” or that most remember “I had a frightful/joyful dream” , indicates that the self is not the waking, or dreaming, or the sleeping forms, but is distinct seer of these changing forms.

Memory loss doesn't necessarily have to occur every time, nor does it require to lose all the memories of an event. And let's not forget that if we are unaware and/or body isn't still interacting with the surrounding when asleep, then we wouldn't be able to hear the alarm clock going off.

Also keep in mind that not every action we do or thought we have, is because we are doing it "consciously," to the point where we noticed it. We don't have to constantly think about breathing, we do automatically. Free writing would be an example of thought.

Saying, “I slept blissfully” or that most remember “I had a frightful/joyful dream” is what we describe the memories during the "dream state." That's only because, as of now, we, humans, know and/or recognized it as dreaming. And dreams means something to us in the sense that it's mysterious and we don't fully understand it. You don't hear people say, "I was blissfully breathing a minute ago," because breathing is an insignificant thing to us compared to dreaming. We use words to describe things, and most, if not always, those words are being used in many different ways. Oftentimes, those words doesn't describe what is "reality," accurately.

 

[atanu]

Memory loss doesn't necessarily have to occur every time, nor does it require to lose all the memories of an event. And let's not forget that if we are unaware and/or body isn't still interacting with the surrounding when asleep, then we wouldn't be able to hear the alarm clock going off.

Also keep in mind that not every action we do or thought we have, is because we are doing it "consciously," to the point where we noticed it. We don't have to constantly think about breathing, we do automatically. Free writing would be an example of thought.

Saying, “I slept blissfully” or that most remember “I had a frightful/joyful dream” is what we describe the memories during the "dream state." That's only because, as of now, we, humans, know and/or recognized it as dreaming. And dreams means something to us in the sense that it's mysterious and we don't fully understand it. You don't hear people say, "I was blissfully breathing a minute ago," because breathing is an insignificant thing to us compared to dreaming. We use words to describe things, and most, if not always, those words are being used in many different ways. Oftentimes, those words doesn't describe what is "reality," accurately.

What you say does not contradict but supports the presence of the conscious being, distinct from three forms of mind called waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

 

[night912]

What you say does not contradict but supports the presence of the conscious being, distinct from three forms of mind called waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. Can you clarify it.

 

[atanu]

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. Can you clarify it.

Probably I cannot more than what I have already done.

 

[night912]

Probably I cannot more than what I have already done.

Then I take it that you agreed with me that our body reacts the same to the surroundings whether we are awake or asleep. That's how I interpretate your previous reply.

 

[night912]

let me clarify.
In order for any person to claim that he is a prophet, I have the right to test such a person.
He will have to give a prophecy of short term, to enable me to verify that he is able to provide evidence that God speaks through him.

In the case of Muhammad, he was tested by the Jewish tribes around him where someone told a silly story, such as Duhl Quarnain who walked to the East and saw the sun rose over people who got very warm, and then walked to the west, and saw the sun set in a muddy pool of water. The Jews then asked Muhammad to tell them about Zul Quarnain.
Poor old Muhammad was so gullable, he realy thought there was such a man, and pretended to receive a revelation and relayed the story as he heard.
This was why the Jews rejected him, and why he eventually attacked and destroyed them all.

On Joseph Smith.
He could not give a single short term prophecy, and it was not required from these gullable followers he had.
His long term prophecies are also incomprehensible, and the few that does make sense, was already proven to be false.

You still haven't explained how you determine them to be false. Obviously there are believers and nonbelievers of those two. That being said, so far all you did was give your own opinion about them being false based on your own religious beliefs and the dislike of those two other religions. For Smith, it's "no short term prophecies" and about his followers. For Muhammad, it's has nothing to do with prophecies. Both of them are inaccurate and appears to be nothing more than bigoted opinions.

Now, I never said that you should first believe then use the formula to determine if someone is a prophet.

I didn't say that's what you said. I said that's what you are doing and/or did.

No pal, I would expect any God to prove his existance to humankind.
I found only one logical test in all the religions I came across, and it is the Biblical one in Deut 18: 18-22.
This made me realise that If I was God, and I had to use men to act as my mouthpiece, I would also have given the normal person the right to test what the prophet says.
In this case, If someone claim to be a representative of God's revelation, let he prove himself.
Tell me what will happen tomorrow.

This is why I adore the Bible.
It was constructed by men under these rules, and if anyone attempted to fool the congregation of the nation, he was playing with his own life.
Thats why I say.
The Bible is true.

And this just ramblings of a believer showing his circular reasoning and says nothing about differentiating between the what is true and what is false. Giving god's "formula" but not even using it on the prophet you believe, shows that you don't care if yours' is true or not.

 

[night912]

lets get this sorted out for once and for all.
If there is a God, I would expect him to reveal himself to me, or to talk to me.
Now lets leave personal experience out of the equation and take what I learned from the Bible.
God did walk with His creation in a paradise of an earth in the beginning, but Man lost his inocence, and became corrupt and was removed from God, for God can not be in the presence of sin and corruption.
Not because there is something short of the omnipotence of God, but because corrupt man will simply die in the face of God's full glory.
Therefore, we can not be in God's presence anymore, we will burn up and die!
Then God visited his creation in the form of an Angel, where the angelic body contained the Word, or Jesus.
This angel appeared to Moses, Abraham and many other.
God eventually appeared in full glory to Moses, but He had to protect Moses and covered him with His hand.
God also appeared to Israel, but they told God not to speak to them directly, for they were terrified of His light and voice.
Then God made the rule of speaking through a prophet.

The above is a very logical explanation of how God actually interacted with His creation, but we rejected Him in this act.
Then God came to his creation in the shape on a normal man, proving that he is God with miracles, and prophecies, which was by the way immediately recognised by the priests.
Now, they hated Jesus for informing them of the things they were guilty off. They just could not BS Him.

Now, if I were to live with a closed mind, I will reject all these claims from the Bible.
But, If I were to think about it in a critical manner, I will have to conclude.
If I was God, I would have done the same.
Therefore, you want to know how one can prove the existance of God.

Easy, Just remember that He even came to Earth as a Man to be with you and to save you from eternal corruption.
What more do you want.
I have a God who made it all, walked with us, was rejected by us, who came to me as a man, who was killed for doing so, who now returned to heaven, and reveals himself through His Spirit and intellect.

The choice is yours!
Accept this, or reject it all.

Read what's in bold. Apparently you are doing that. Right when it starts to seems like there will be an interesting and honest discussion, the whole defensive mode clicked back on. This whole post is just another defensive rambling from a believer that have closed his mind so tightly due to fear, just plain too dumb to even understand the question or both. Seems more like both to me from the responses that's posted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

lets get this sorted out for once and for all.
If there is a God, I would expect him to reveal himself to me, or to talk to me.
Now lets leave personal experience out of the equation and take what I learned from the Bible.
God did walk with His creation in a paradise of an earth in the beginning, but Man lost his inocence, and became corrupt and was removed from God, for God can not be in the presence of sin and corruption.
Not because there is something short of the omnipotence of God, but because corrupt man will simply die in the face of God's full glory.
Therefore, we can not be in God's presence anymore, we will burn up and die!
Then God visited his creation in the form of an Angel, where the angelic body contained the Word, or Jesus.
This angel appeared to Moses, Abraham and many other.
God eventually appeared in full glory to Moses, but He had to protect Moses and covered him with His hand.
God also appeared to Israel, but they told God not to speak to them directly, for they were terrified of His light and voice.
Then God made the rule of speaking through a prophet.

The above is a very logical explanation of how God actually interacted with His creation, but we rejected Him in this act.
Then God came to his creation in the shape on a normal man, proving that he is God with miracles, and prophecies, which was by the way immediately recognised by the priests.
Now, they hated Jesus for informing them of the things they were guilty off. They just could not BS Him.

Now, if I were to live with a closed mind, I will reject all these claims from the Bible.
But, If I were to think about it in a critical manner, I will have to conclude.
If I was God, I would have done the same.

Really? You would have done the same?

So, if you were an all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent entity, you would create living things and set rules for that them you already know, by virtue of your omnipotence, they were doomed to fail, do nothing to prevent the failure, then turn yourself into a human temporarily to sacrifice yourself to yourself to create a loophole to allow humans to be saved from the impossible to follow rules you created despite having the ability and will to eliminate the rule or the need for it in the first place.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

 

[night912]

Well, if we leave the namecalling out of your posts, it is actually an interesting claim you made.
And it also displays how ignorant you want to be, not how you are, but how you want to be.
You demand that "God can not exist in any way shape or form at all no matter what excuse you use"
Realy?
So who was Jesus.
Who appeared to Moses?
To Israel?

Once again, the stupidity is back. And it could've been an interesting discussion too, it's just a shame you had to too stupid and ignorant to continue. And yes, your posts do show how ignorant you are and how ignorant you want to remain.