"God's total quality management questionnaire"
- Thread starter Mercutio
- Start date
Iacchus said:
1- I respect someone can believe somthing intrinsically, or feel they "know it" intrinsically, and there are things I feel I "know intrinsically, but it is not something I can demand that I am right and others wrong.
Also I feel no emotional attachment to it including ever making a statement like
You made this a personal issue, you believe something or believe you know it and so you tell others it is the truth and what they believe is a lie. Then you become “bothered†they will not simply believe you and that they ask for proof. That is a self-inflected wound.
We can intrinsically, know 1+1=2 because we can “do the math†if you will.
I can provide you with facts proving that 1 apple + 1 apple makes 2 apples. I have asked you for your proof of God, facts logical conclusion yet you offer none.
I will ask this again knowing full well you will not respond. How come what you say you know intrinsically, is fact, yet what another says they know intrinsically, that contradicts your belief is fiction?
How come your intrinsically, is real and their intrinsically, is false?
Hence it would seem, that the New Church should be founded upon the understanding of who God is intrinsically. While anything else would be considered a sham ...
So how would you know? The same way you know 1 + 1 = 2. Otherwise you're just taking someone else's word for it.
You are using the Bible to prove God??
Shall I use Charles Schultz's "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" to prove the existence of the great pumpkin?
I would ask you why the Bible would be more valid then the books of other beliefs that contradict the Bible but we know asking such questions goes.
We can use the Christian Bible to “prove†many things
1- We Can prove Jesus was Satan
The name Lucifer (another name for Satan) means light bearer, or morning star:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer to the ground..." - Isaiah 14:12
The last page of the Bible reveals the shocker:
"I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." -Rev. 22:16
2-We can “prove†a bat is in fact a bird
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19
3-We can prove there Insects with four feet even though insects have six feet and arachnids have eight.
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23
4- in Genesis 1:29 we can prove that we God gave us food from seeds from every plant and tree.
GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat.
A safety eating the seeds from the poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander will kill you.
5- in Leviticus 14:33-57 we can prove that in fact leprosy comes from clothing and houses.
LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.
6- in Leviticus 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.
Who would have known?
And so on and so forth.
I could post passages from many holy books of many beliefs, what makes theirs wrong and yours right?
Ok OK I know you will not respond..
What you know from 1 + 1 = 2 is that 1 + 1 = 2. No God found there. And what you wish us to do is just take your words for it, I do not.
David Brooks has a hint: "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
Shall I use Charles Schultz's "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" to prove the existence of the great pumpkin?
I would ask you why the Bible would be more valid then the books of other beliefs that contradict the Bible but we know asking such questions goes.
We can use the Christian Bible to “prove†many things
1- We Can prove Jesus was Satan
The name Lucifer (another name for Satan) means light bearer, or morning star:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer to the ground..." - Isaiah 14:12
The last page of the Bible reveals the shocker:
"I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." -Rev. 22:16
2-We can “prove†a bat is in fact a bird
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19
3-We can prove there Insects with four feet even though insects have six feet and arachnids have eight.
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23
4- in Genesis 1:29 we can prove that we God gave us food from seeds from every plant and tree.
GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat.
A safety eating the seeds from the poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander will kill you.
5- in Leviticus 14:33-57 we can prove that in fact leprosy comes from clothing and houses.
LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.
6- in Leviticus 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.
Who would have known?
And so on and so forth.
I could post passages from many holy books of many beliefs, what makes theirs wrong and yours right?
Ok OK I know you will not respond..
What you know from 1 + 1 = 2 is that 1 + 1 = 2. No God found there. And what you wish us to do is just take your words for it, I do not.
David Brooks has a hint: "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
Iacchus said:
I agree we look to "within" within the mind to what the mind truly is, free from grasping, emotions such as fear, hatred, anger. No desires just simply to what is.
Such is the "kingdom " of what is, free. No fear no desires.
I respect you call it "God" if you like.
Well let me ask you this. Do you agree that it's possible to know something intrinsically? Or not? If you say yes, then you have no business asking me this. If you say no, then you are saying people are not capable of knowing anything, in which case there's no possible way we can even discuss it.Pahansiri said:
You didn't answer my question. Are you saing it's not possible to understand something on an intrinsic level? Such as 1 + 1 = 2? Because if you don't believe it's possible, then how can I answer your question? Obviously I can't.Pahansiri said:
Iacchus said:
How does it feel?
I can prove 1+1=2 as I have pointed out, but you can not prove God.
You believe it an intrinsic level and I respect that.
Now please answer
Who is right, you who intrinsically knows there is a God or the people who intrinsically know there is not?
and why please.
Um...Iacchus, that 1+1=2 is known "intrinsically" is mere assertion on your part to begin with. Secondly, there is a huge pile of research demonstrating the unreliability of introspective "knowledge"; in other words, what you believe you "know intrinsically" may well be false.
I don't expect that to stop you from using the same arguments again in many other threads.
Max560, please don't apologize--check the opening post; this argument is a derailment from the thread, so there is no reason to think your question is any less valid than their conversation. Anyway, I really just wanted to ask you something based on your avatar. Did you, a decade ago, post on the quartz/prism bulletin boards? Just curious. I knew a fellow (went by "coot" to his friends) whose username is on your avatar.
I don't expect that to stop you from using the same arguments again in many other threads.
Max560, please don't apologize--check the opening post; this argument is a derailment from the thread, so there is no reason to think your question is any less valid than their conversation. Anyway, I really just wanted to ask you something based on your avatar. Did you, a decade ago, post on the quartz/prism bulletin boards? Just curious. I knew a fellow (went by "coot" to his friends) whose username is on your avatar.
Much better to have the blind stumbling about individually, I am certain.Iacchus said:
I see now why you refuse to look at any experimental literature, Iacchus--it is important for you to think of scientists as just as blind as you are. It would be terrible indeed if they actually knew more than you did, wouldn't it? Best if you don't find out...