The Debate of God.

[Thief]

Say then. "No, I do not exist". "Nay" means "Yaaa".

Can't say 'I don't exist'....simply can't.

I have to exist.... to say anything.
Therefore...'I AM!'

 

[atanu]

Can't say 'I don't exist'....simply can't.

I have to exist.... to say anything.
Therefore...'I AM!'

Exactly. But in what form? In an embodied form only? Who is the owner of "I Am"?

 

[Thief]

Exactly. But in what form? In an embodied form only? Who is the owner of "I Am"?

Some people claim we belong to God.
God's children...
God's servants...
God's creation...

This form is of course, temporary.

'Do not confrom to this world, be transformed by it.'
So I've heard.

 

[atanu]

Some people claim we beong to God.
God's children...
God's servants...
God's creation...

This form is of course, temporary.

'Do not confrom to this world, be transformed by it.'
So I've heard.

So. We do not know.

 

[Thief]

So. We do not know.

Not the same thing.
Having heard......the plea of ignorance is stolen away.

So having heard....yes you know.
You might not agree....but you know.

 

[atanu]

Not the same thing.
Having heard......the plea of ignorance is stolen away.

So having heard....yes you know.
You might not agree....but you know.

You heard many other things but you simply ignored those. You also heard a lot of bs. Have you used any discrimination?

God's creation has rapists, war mongerers, murderers, etc. etc. Why did God create such a creation?

 

[atanu]

Who is the owner of "I Am"?

This was the question.

 

[Thief]

This was the question.

and the answer is in post #3843.

 

[atanu]

Exactly. But in what form? In an embodied form only? Who is the owner of "I Am"?

and the answer is in post #3843.

OK.

Some people claim we belong to God.
God's children...
God's servants...
God's creation...

This form is of course, temporary.

'Do not confrom to this world, be transformed by it.'
So I've heard.

Why stick to the Temporary? Why wilfully ignore "He was before All. In Him all subsist."

(I think we are going in circles. There are different states of seekers and one seeker's requirement will not match another. Accordingly there are variety of dishes available).

 

[Thief]

OK.

Why stick to the Temporary? Why wilfully ignore "He was before All. In Him all subsist."

(I think we are going in circles. There are different states of seekers and one seeker's requirement will not match another. Accordingly there are variety of dishes available).

You skipped from one form to another....and overlapped the word temporary.

THIS form is temporary.

God is not like us.
It is said of Him....was ....is .....and shall always be.

We have beginnings.
we have the potential to continue.
We are also prone to failure....in this life and the next.

So I believe.

 

[atanu]

.THIS form is temporary.
God is not like us.
It is said of Him....was ....is .....and shall always be.

It was already commented upon as below. You wish to continue with the temporary only.

.We have beginnings..

Reality has no beginning. It was laready pointed out that you are wilfully ignoring a simple teaching "He was before All. In Him all subsist.

I repeat: .....I think we are going in circles. There are different states of seekers and one seeker's requirement will not match another. Accordingly there are variety of dishes available. I cannot argue with your choice to stick with illusion.:sorry1:

 

[Thief]

It was already commented upon as below. You wish to continue with the temporary only.



Reality has no beginning. It was laready pointed out that you are wilfully ignoring a simple teaching "He was before All. In Him all subsist.

I repeat: .....I think we are going in circles. There are different states of seekers and one seeker's requirement will not match another. Accordingly there are variety of dishes available. I cannot argue with your choice to stick with illusion.:sorry1:

I believe in linear existence.

I'm not the one going about in circles.

 

[atanu]

I believe in linear existence.

I'm not the one going about in circles.

You are. Since your saying linear existence means nothing. Do you know the so-called beginning of existence? What caused the beginning?

You are just coming back to your belief, in circular fashion. :sorry1: And I do not see any possiblity of any change in a robot that parrots out the same phrase at regular periodic intervals "I believe in linear existence", without knowing what that may mean. Or without knowing that scriptures do not support the belief.

Ecclesiastes

---What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

 

[atanu]

I believe in linear existence.

Debate, with the intention of improving understanding cannot take place when one sticks to an unfounded belief. Your belief is neither supported by reason nor by scripture.

I do not wish to to waste time with you anymore. No offence meant. Best.

If you ever question your own beliefs, then we may resume, perhaps?

 

[Thief]

Debate, with the intention of improving understanding cannot take place when one sticks to an unfounded belief. Your belief is neither supported by reason nor by scripture.

I do not wish to to waste time with you anymore. No offence meant. Best.

If you ever question your own beliefs, then we may resume, perhaps?

In the beginning.....(scripture)

We live day by day.

How is this unreasonable?