Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: neutronflux
Ravi Zacharias is the type of teacher Paul warns for at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. He's a product of Christendom. This counterfeit form of Christianity is not the religion that Jesus established. Rather, it is a man-made version and is practiced by most professed Christians today.
...
Regarding Ravi Zacharias, wikipedia mentions that "his family was Anglican" and "in 1990, he participated in guided study at Ridley Hall, a Church of England theological school in Cambridge." Also "Zacharias spent the summer of 1971 in South Vietnam, where he evangelized US soldiers, as well as imprisoned Viet Cong members." The blame for the lack of interest in God and his Word must rest largely with the clergy. They have so confused people that they no longer know what to believe. Notice how this is shown in the book A Church Without God, written by clergyman E. Harrison:

“Werner Pelz, who entitled a book God Is No More, is a Church of England vicar; William H. Dubay, who asserts that Christ ‘did away with religion,’ is a Roman Catholic priest . . . Father Jackson, who says, ‘If there is a God, we can’t speak of him as a supreme being,’ is a university chaplain; Thomas Altizer [God is dead], who wrote The Gospel of Christian Atheism, is an Associate Professor of Bible Studies at an American university; I am on the staff of an Anglican parish in Toronto. I claim to be a Christian and an Anglican; yet I can say, in all seriousness, that there is no God.”

Observing how far Christendom’s clergymen have strayed away from Christian standards, author Berton, a former member of the Anglican Church in Canada, stated:

“It has all but been forgotten that Christianity began as a revolutionary religion whose followers embraced an entirely different set of values from those held by other members of society. Those original values are still in conflict with the values of contemporary society; yet religion today has become as conservative a force as the force the original Christians were in conflict with.”

Yes, the clergy of Christendom have abandoned true Christian teaching and practice. They have become the very thing that Jesus and the first-century Christians exposed as working contrary to God’s will. They are like the ones to whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”—Matt. 15:6-9.

One of the main reasons for the decline in esteem that the clergy are suffering is their involvement in the politics and wars of this world (see what I quoted from wikipedia about Ravi Zacharias' involvement in Vietnam, which is just a hint of this, wikipedia won't tell the whole story). More and more persons are coming to see how inconsistent it is for clergymen to support both sides, especially in military struggles. In this regard the New York World-Telegram and Sun reported on March 11, 1966:

“Representatives of three religious faiths sought yesterday to convince a group of Brooklyn students that the Biblical injunction against killing did not apply to the war in Viet Nam.
...
The clergymen involved were Catholic, Jewish and Protestant. In attempting to justify involvement in war, one of them said: “Killing must be done with a pure heart.”

In a poll taken of clergymen serving as military chaplains (like Ravi Zacharias did), it was discovered that their views in no way differed from those of other military men as to the morality of modern warfare. As author Berton notes: “None felt that the individual soldier had any more responsibility in the matter except to serve his country. This outlook is very similar to the one that formed the core of Adolph Eichmann’s defence during his trial in Israel.”

Bertrand Russell said that in England “the Anglican Church has upheld every Government view including those concerning war and killing.” He noted that the church actually had become a force for establishing “resistance to conscientious protest.”
...

Isaac Newton about the Anglican Church, a.k.a. the Church of England, which Ravi Zacharias is basically a product of (or you can say he's a product of Christendom with his roots or upbringing in the Anglican Church); as well as about false religion a.k.a. Babylon the Great and the doctrine of the Trinity:

In the context of evolutionary philosophies and religion again:

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

Archbishop of Canterbury: ...

approval of Falkland Islands war: g83 5/8 30

Politicians or Churchmen?

● “The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his clerical approval to the Falklands war yesterday,” reported London’s Daily Mail. In the first address an archbishop has ever given to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Robert Runcie told the assembled diplomats that “it was right to send a task force after the Argentine invasion.” He went on to advise them on how to handle the nuclear threat and disarmament.

First source (what's below that is from the link there): Church of England

Anglican Church of Canada:

attitude toward homosexuals: g82 12/8 30; g81 10/22 30
attitude toward premarital sex: w81 3/1 23; g80 11/22 24 [whereislogic: I'm not gonna do all the links, you can find them through the "first source" linked further above]
...
Anglican clergymen can be ordained as Catholic priests: w81 1/1 23
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission: g85 6/22 17-19
...
Archbishop of Canterbury: g74 8/8 30; g74 9/8 30; w67 16, ...

All at once:

Homosexuals in Religion

● The United Church of Canada has formed a national group of homosexuals and lesbians named Affirm. This brings to three the number of major religions in Canada sponsoring national homosexual organizations. The other two are the Anglican Church with its group Integrity and the Roman Catholic Church whose group is called Dignity. Affirm will aid the United Church in making decisions about ordaining homosexual ministers. But some within the United Church find ordination of homosexuals incongruous with Bible principles, reports the Toronto Star, and they petitioned the church: “The ordination of unrepentant, avowed homosexuals conflicts with the biblical witness.”

Ousted for Morality

◆ An Anglican minister in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, spoke out against Church policy of having separate services for homosexuals. The Church asked for his resignation. “I could not in good conscience continue,” said cleric George Morley. “I have nothing against homosexuals; what I opposed and objected to was giving them a special status​—an identity within the church.” According to the Toronto Sun, “Morley said that the Anglican church had been all too liberal in dealing with society’s ills and it was about time it got back to its Christian standards.” “It is what God says that matters,” declared the ousted clergyman.

In a recent Toronto “Star” column, “Youth Clinic,” an 18-year-old girl asked whether the Bible forbids sex before marriage. The answer by Anglican priest Graham Cotter was: “There is no specific passage in the Bible which forbids sex before marriage in all circumstances.”

Similarly, Canada’s Anglican Church, which had authorized ordination of homosexuals as priests in 1979, also issued a report suggesting that “conventional prissiness” about unmarried couples living together should be dropped. The report says that if the relationship involves “free consent and sexual consummation” in a context of life commitment, then a marriage already exists “in substance.” Arguing for church acknowledgment of this arrangement, the report says: “We must be prepared to marvel in silence when we see that [God] can make ‘common-law marriage’ on occasion a means of grace.”

When this report recently was considered at the Church’s general synod, advocates urged the assembled clerics to “face this reality.” And clergyman Garry Patterson said: “In the last three years I haven’t prepared anyone for marriage who hadn’t already been living together.” On the other hand, Donald Masters of Guelph University declared: “I find it absolutely incredible in a day of slipping morals that the church should approve of something which a good many moral heathen wouldn’t accept.”

● When the Vatican announced that Anglican clergymen could be ordained as Catholic priests, it pleased Anglicans who had defected from the Episcopal Church. One reason why is that the Vatican decision permitted married Anglican clergymen who convert to Catholicism to be ordained as Catholic clergy and remain married, if they qualify in other respects. Single Anglican clergy converting will have to remain celibate, and no married priest can become a bishop.

However, the decision has caused problems. Many Catholics feel that it is unfair, or at least inconsistent, to accommodate married Anglican priests but not Catholic priests who want to marry and remain in the priesthood. They point to the growing shortage of priests, and cite widespread opposition to mandatory celibacy as one of the main reasons for the shortage.

Anglican-Roman Catholic Efforts

In 1966 the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is generally acknowledged to be the spiritual head of the Anglican Church, agreed to the formation of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. Beginning in 1970, it spent 12 years examining the difficulties hindering unity and recommending possible solutions. The Commission, made up of ten scholars from each religion, paid particular attention to three controversial issues: authority (including papal primacy and infallibility); Catholic adoration of the Eucharist; and the ordained ministry.

How was the Commission’s report received by the two churches? Neither rejected it out of hand. In fact, it is expected that each Church will take years to formulate an official response. But a London Times editorial forecast that “actual union between the two [Rome and Canterbury] is surely a generation away at least.” Blocking the path are such issues as contraception, married clergy, the infallibility and jurisdiction of the pope, the adoration of Mary, and the ordination of Anglican clergy, declared to be “utterly invalid and altogether void” by Leo XIII at the First Vatican Council in 1896.

When Pope John Paul II visited Britain in the summer of 1982, he and the Archbishop of Canterbury agreed to set up another international commission to study further the possibility of moving towards unity.

Will Britain’s Churches Unite?

Well aware of the religious disunity around them and the setbacks they have encountered, the ecumenists continue their conciliatory efforts. For them, unity is a pious hope for the distant future. For the time being, they seem happy to settle for cooperation and mutual respect. The talk is of “union without absorption” as the joint chairmen of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission described it.

Church and State

◆ The recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, now heads the (Episcopalian) Anglican Church of England. Embarrassingly, a Methodist appointed him! Why? That is the religion of England’s prime minister, Harold Wilson, whose duty it is to make such appointments.

New Archbishop and His Bible

◆ In November the Church of England will have a new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Donald Coggan. What are his views about the Bible? The Guardian reports that during an interview Dr. Coggan “replied that he did not take all parts of the Bible as equally valid.”

... himself in his column on Tuesday, May 31, 1966: “Within the United Presbyterian Church is a new organization called the Presbyterian Lay Committee​—and behind it lies a fundamental worry of Protestant laymen throughout America: Is the Bible being stressed enough? Is there too much talk from the pulpit these days on social questions and politics, and not enough on the word of God? Declared one prominent Dallas Presbyterian layman recently: ‘Most ministers are so misguided, so completely off base and so full of liberal and humanistic thought that they are proving more worthless to their parishioners each day.’” He went on to say in this article: “Modern man today is taking the Bible apart, discarding what it wishes to discard in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the Greek Scriptures and so they will adjust God’s moral code or law to please themselves.”

15-17. (a) To what extreme viewpoint have clergymen gone in their thoughts about morals and immorality? (b) What guiding principle in these matters does the apostle Paul give us?

15 This statement is so true. Prominent clergymen of Christendom are destroying the people’s belief in the Bible. Is it a myth to you and do you think the Bible’s code for moral conduct is outmoded? Are you gradually being weakened in your faith to a point where you will agree with such men as “Reverend” John W. Wood, a minister of the United Church of Christ, a body formed in the United States by a union of Congregational, Evangelical and Reformed churches, who said: “Homosexual love may reach a sacramental level and thus become as moral as heterosexual behavior. Is it proper for two of the same sex to enter the institution of marriage? This is an important question to which I must reply ‘Yes’”? (Toronto Star of June 15, 1963) Of course, the “Reverend” John W. Wood is in full agreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury in this matter of homosexuality. The Associated Press gives this report from London, with the headline: “Cleric Asks Homosexual Legalization.” “The Archbishop of Canterbury joined other members of the British House of Lords Wednesday in urging the legalization of homosexual practices between adult males.”

16 Of course, these clergymen of Christendom think that, if they can stamp the immoral acts of man in the law books as lawful, that will make it moral even though it is contrary to God’s moral law. The apostle Paul would not agree with the Archbishop, because Paul wrote: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rom. 1:24-32; Lev. 18:22) Why do you not follow the advice in God’s Word? It says: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins.”​—Rev. 18:4.

17 The Associated Press dispatch from Vancouver, B.C., of May 11 informs us: “A bishop of the church of England has said he believes there are circumstances when sexual intercourse outside marriage is not immoral. Such a circumstance could occur with a couple seriously contemplating marriage, the Rt. Rev. Wilfred A. Westall, Bishop of Crediton, Devon, England, told an interviewer. He said he could not condone promiscuity. ‘I don’t think that just because a boy and girl have had premarital intercourse they are unfit for marriage.’” Of course, clergymen of Christendom with this view do not agree with the apostle Paul who said: “Neither fornicators . . . nor adulterers . . . will inherit God’s kingdom.” Paul constantly admonished Christians to “flee from fornication.”​—1 Cor. 6:18.

originally posted by: Pachomius
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

[Please everyone, bear with me, I still have to re-learn how to write in ATS forum, as I used to know some over two years ago.]

OK , I'll Bite . Please Define your Own Interpretation of what a " GOD " is First , then I will try to Explain Why you are Wrong .

a reply to: whereislogic

What is right for you is right for you I guess?

Not sure how Ravi Zacharias was an enemy of Jesus?

Mark 9:38-41
New International Version
Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us(A)
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”(B)

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.(C) 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

www.biblegateway.com...:38-41&version=NIV

Shrugs

Did Ravi Zacharias preach not to, or something other than “ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a](A) 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’(B) 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”(C)””

Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version

www.biblegateway.com...

edit on 28-6-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 28-6-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [ 17 words ]

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[ posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM ]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

__________________________



The following text is taken and rehashed from the internet.

[QUOTE]
For God, my definition is the following: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


For universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.


Owing to the taboo/phobia with atheists to think honestly, intelligently, and productively on what is existence, they are always into strains of the strawman fallacy with their words, intended self-fraudulently to deceive readers that they have something to say of any substance, but it is all inane strawman.


For example, they would give the bait with a conditional sentence:


If existence is the default status of reality, then the universe could have brought itself to existence.


Of course not, because there is no reason why and how the universe should if it had already been in existence.


There, dear atheists, you should have postulated instead that there has always been an entity that is self-existing - instead of the universe causing itself to come into existence.

And that entity that is self-existing, it is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning. [17 words ]

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.
And the OP is as follows:
[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

As I am the only poster here with the definition of God at the top of my post, I am entitled to talk about the issue God exists or not, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
This is my procedure for proving the existence of God.
1. I know for a fact that existence is the default status of reality.
2. I know for a fact that the universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
3. I know for a fact that living things like for examples - babies and roses - have a beginning at the very point in time their sexual reproduction takes place.
4. My definition of God is the following: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
5. No. 2 and No. 3 are about objects outside of our mind and independent of our mind, and they have beginnings to their existence: it follows that they are evidence to the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
6. Therefore: I have proven from evidence that God is the entity in existence or in the default status of reality [see No. 1]: because God corresponds to my definition of God, namely, God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.

Apparently your phone calls are unanswered; your messages ignored?

a reply to: Pachomius

My God ! That is Correct ! .......)

a reply to: neutronflux

The greatest of the commandments that was ever given to men requires us to love Jehovah with all our mental powers. Jesus pointed out what this greatest commandment is when he quoted it from God’s Law and said: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.” (Matt. 22:37, NW; Deut. 6:5, AS; Luke 10:27)

In the book of Revelation, Jesus’ first message is to the congregation in Ephesus. For the Ephesians, he has this message: “I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot bear bad men, and that you put those to the test who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them liars. You are also showing endurance, and you have borne up for my name’s sake and have not grown weary.” (Revelation 2:2, 3) Years before, the apostle Paul had warned the Ephesian elders about “oppressive wolves,” apostate disturbers of the flock, and had told those elders to “keep awake,” following his own tireless example. (Acts 20:29, 31)

During the Lord’s day, too, there have appeared “false apostles” who “speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (2 Corinthians 11:13; Acts 20:30; Revelation 1:10)

Now, however, as he does with five of the seven congregations, Jesus singles out a serious problem. He says to the Ephesians: “Nevertheless, I hold this against you, that you have left the love you had at first.” (Revelation 2:4) They should not have failed in this respect, for Paul had written them 35 years earlier referring to God’s “great love with which he loved us,” and he had urged them: “Become imitators of God, as beloved children, and go on walking in love, just as the Christ also loved you.” (Ephesians 2:4; 5:1, 2) Further, Jesus’ words should have been inscribed indelibly on their hearts: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.” (Mark 12:29-31) The Ephesians had lost that first love.

Nevertheless, Jesus has this encouraging word for the Ephesians: “Still, you do have this, that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nicolaus, which I also hate.” (Revelation 2:6) At least they hated sectarian division, just as the Lord Jesus Christ hates it. As the years went by, however, many congregations failed to heed those words of Jesus. Lack of love for Jehovah, for the truth, and for one another resulted in their drifting into spiritual darkness. They became fragmented into numerous quarreling sects. “Christian” copyists who had no love for Jehovah removed God’s very name from Greek manuscripts of the Bible. Lack of love also allowed room for teaching Babylonish and Grecian doctrines, such as hellfire, purgatory, and the Trinity, in the name of Christianity. Having no love for God and for the truth, most of those who claimed to be Christian ceased to preach the good news of God’s Kingdom. They came to be dominated by a selfish clergy class that made its own kingdom here on earth.​—Compare 1 Corinthians 4:8.

Resorting to weapons of war

Catholic historian E. I. Watkin writes: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. I do not know in fact of a single instance in which a national hierarchy has condemned as unjust any war . . . Whatever the official theory, in practice ‘my country always right’ has been the maxim followed in wartime by Catholic Bishops.”—Morals and Missiles (London, 1959), edited by Charles S. Thompson, pp. 57, 58.

Matt. 26:52, JB: “Jesus then said, ‘Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.’”

1 John 3:10-12, JB: “In this way we distinguish the children of God from the children of the devil: anybody . . . not loving his brother is no child of God’s. . . . We are to love one another; not to be like Cain, who belonged to the Evil One and cut his brother’s throat.”

Source: Apostolic Succession (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: neutronflux

Regarding Ravi Zacharias, wikipedia mentions that "his family was Anglican" and "in 1990, he participated in guided study at Ridley Hall, a Church of England theological school in Cambridge." Also "Zacharias spent the summer of 1971 in South Vietnam, where he evangelized US soldiers, as well as imprisoned Viet Cong members." ...
...
One of the main reasons for the decline in esteem that the clergy are suffering is their involvement in the politics and wars of this world (see what I quoted from wikipedia about Ravi Zacharias' involvement in Vietnam, which is just a hint of this, wikipedia won't tell the whole story). ...
...
In a poll taken of clergymen serving as military chaplains (like Ravi Zacharias did [serving in the military]), it was discovered that their views in no way differed from those of other military men as to the morality of modern warfare. As author Berton notes: “None felt that the individual soldier had any more responsibility in the matter except to serve his country. This outlook is very similar to the one that formed the core of Adolph Eichmann’s defence during his trial in Israel.”

Bertrand Russell said that in England “the Anglican Church has upheld every Government view including those concerning war and killing.” He noted that the church actually had become a force for establishing “resistance to conscientious protest.”

Note how that matches what I quoted in this comment from Catholic historian E. I. Watkin regarding Catholic Bishops.

originally posted by: whereislogic

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” Gr., ou . . . stra·teu·oʹme·tha; Lat., non . . . mi·li·taʹmus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”​—2 CORINTHIANS 10:3-5

“We are not doing military service.” Plain and simple. Do not follow Ravi Zacharias' teachings, they are unhealthy for your mind. Poison. See my signature, and earlier commentary on ATS concerning nationalism, patriotism, war, military service, the Flag Salute, the behaviour of self-professed Christians when their nation goes to war or is sending soldiers somewhere to fight and their religious teachers to keep them in line and obedient to Satan's murderous system of things with his little “just war”-style argumentation. It's been a while since I've talked about nationalism, military service and pro-war propaganda ('serving your country'-ideology) in detail, but perhaps there's an easy way to find that commentary. In those comments I've often used part of this article:

What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood? (Awake!—1981)

... In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

Too, as the story of the chapel in Scotland shows, nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

a reply to: whereislogic

Really don’t care dude. Worry about your own soul. I don’t care what Zacharias did in 1971 if he had his peace with God. Your so quick to judge based off writings other than the Bible.

Wonder what your judgement will be like when you freely give the mind of god to others, and keep a tally almost 50 years.

Judging Others
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

www.biblegateway.com...:1-6&version=NIV

10. He nailed our sin debt to the cross (Col. 2:14).

God not only erases our sin debt, He destroys the document on which our debt was recorded by nailing it to the cross. We are forgiven because of the cross of Jesus.

My sin—oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!—
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise t

goexplorethebible.com...

Sum up? Your going back to 71? Ravi died in 2020.

Do you have any evidence he didn’t ask for forgiveness for his sins that dog all humankind?

From his teachings and sermons for the last twenty years (since 2020) , can you quote and cite anything blasphemies and unforgivable?

Think goodness Jesus is my salvation and redeemer. I don’t think anyone could live up to your standards, In clouding yourself.

a reply to: whereislogic

A Memory and A Hope: Saigon Then and Now

Article By
Ravi Zacharias

www.rzim.org...


Friends, God moves in mysterious ways—and his ways are always perfect. I am so filled with his presence and blessing for giving me the opportunity to return to Vietnam. The dots are connecting with Spirit-anointed reality. If He gives me the chance, I will return again with my teammates and who knows what blessing He has in store if my work is not yet done?

Thank you for your prayers. Thank you for your support. I am ever grateful for your love and encouragement. Pray for Vietnam. They are a lovely people. God can bless this land anew. What a victory that will be, not for a political theory but for the City of God.

Oh. I see now. Such insidious and unforgivable teachings by Ravi Zacharias in the last part of his life. Yes. That was sarcasm.

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [ 17 words ]

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[ posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM ]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

__________________________




Dear anyone here, if you ask for my interpretation of my definition of God, please go away, because your asking for interpretation is the quick proof that you are not literate.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
God is a concept thought up by mushroom eating hippies.

Mother Nature is the real god for she created all that is wonderful.

The Universe is something that any man cannot yet comprehend

You need to chill on the bats with COVID going around.





Anyway. You make a great point. The God of anything and everything is its nature.

That is the most logical idea imaginable one can grasp.

Religion has appended to God the mystery of good and evil, the concept of Heaven and Hell, and the Fall.

Those are what we all really are interested in. Those are the real mysteries.

Addendum:


And all you dear colleagues here who are into religion and God, that for me they are not identical.


Let you just observe what religious folks all of them are into, they are into asking God or gods for favors, though they know that God - not counting gods because them gods are not as good as God, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


See? You guys don't observe what religious folks all of them do all the time: so God can do without religious folks, but religious folks i.e. cultivating a religion, they are all of them always and everywhere asking favors from God - and gods, though these latters are not as good as God, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


Do all religious folks need God or gods? Perhaps with Buddhists and their kinds, they don't need God or gods, they only need meditation.

But lay Buddhists in the lands where Buddhism is dominant, they have Buddha for their god, and they have plenty of gods besides - so I have to correct myself(?).


Anyway, just keep in mind that God and religion are not identical, one can do without the other - in the big picture of things.



NB Think about that, all ye atheists who were Christians before.

Addendum 2


For all ye self-smart colleagues here, no need to bring in good and evil to factor in on the issue God exists or not.


When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.


Good and evil, that is what humans do to fellow humans, and starting with evil or with good feelings and deeds toward one another.

a reply to: Pachomius

For all ye self-smart colleagues here, no need to bring in good and evil to factor in on the issue God exists or not.

When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.

So the “ God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

By your own definition god created good and evil.

And the “creator” of everything would not find some aspect of creation “good”?

that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.

Swing and a miss by you. Pure existence is the absence of God. The presence of god is pure glory and righteousness.

Your really not very good at this. And your not as smart as you think. I will give you credit for the ability to troll though.

originally posted by: Pachomius
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [ 17 words ]

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[ posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM ]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

__________________________




Dear anyone here, if you ask for my interpretation of my definition of God, please go away, because your asking for interpretation is the quick proof that you are not literate.

And what you think is all you want to talk about.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think the individual wants to troll-up the posting again to keep “their” thread going.

Someday I will learn not to feed the trolls........

Addendum 3


You folks who come with trolls, please also go away with them - that is your just dessert with your trolls, and clean the table afterwards.



For folks here who dare to keep to honest intelligent productive thinking, let us talk about existence.


And here is my postulation on existence:


There are ultimately two kinds of existence: the self-existing kind, and the kind that is dependent on another kind: the latter depends upon the former for coming to and continuing in existence, okay?

Addendum 4


For those who want to talk about good and evil and evolution whatever, please leave the thread, the thread is for homines sapientes to deal with on the ultimate issue of God exists or not, and homines sapientes always work as to first concur on definitions of crucial words like existence, God, universe . . .


Are you now through with how God and religion need not be conflated at all?

a reply to: Pachomius

Honest debate?

Didn’t you just ccondradict yourself?

originally posted by: neutronflux


a reply to: Pachomius

For all ye self-smart colleagues here, no need to bring in good and evil to factor in on the issue God exists or not.

When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.

So the “ God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

By your own definition god created good and evil.

And the “creator” of everything would not find some aspect of creation “good”?

that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.

Swing and a miss by you. Pure existence is the absence of God. The presence of god is pure glory and righteousness.

Your really not very good at this. And your not as smart as you think. I will give you credit for the ability to troll though.

——————————

Or is that not on the table for “honest” discussion?


Funny from a person who’s only experience of god seems to be a text book definition wrapped in personal dogma. A self created religion? All the while that person ignores spirituality and faith, and hand waves off personal accounts and relationships with God by falsely labeling them “religion”.

They say Buddha didn’t believe in God.

I think he didn’t believe in the Santa Clause sky God of western religion.

The real estate agent who tortures his holy men who isn't sitting around in a cloud looking down on this hell and distributing grace.

That God is NOT observable by anyone.