Where are you God?

You are so limited in your perspective that you suppose that the source of all that is happens to have a sexual identity. And you suppose such a thing because your frame of reference is dictated by only those things that you can identify with.

Now tell me, is Jesus Christ the son of the god you speak of?

Dear Glennn, long time no read from you.

So, do you have now something to say about why there is something than nothing? That is not nonsense?

Read Lawrence Krauss and his funny book on why there is something than nothing; then take out something from his devious mind, and make it even more funny when you write again to exchange thoughts with me, okay?

It is true that there is something, and not nothing. However, the answer to the question of why that is so is not so simple as you have speculated. Your reference is limited by your limited scope; that is, you cannot think outside the box, which is evidenced by your inability to even remove sex from your description of the source of all that is. What makes you think that the god of your belief is a sexual being?

Now tell me, is Jesus Christ the son of the god you speak of? Do not be shy.

Dear Glennn, thanks for your presence, but you are up to your old trick.

That is already hoary for a trick in muddling up the issue, with bringing in the sex of God.

It's all up to you, whether you want to address God as He or She or say even It.

God in concept with the monotheists of Judaism, Christianism, and Islamism, is in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, you also ask me or tell me that I am thinking from my box, what is that, pray, box of my thinking.

Do you have or you don't any box in which you think?

I think in my box which I describe as the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

And I have three dicta about that box which is existence, namely:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.
3. Existence is either in our mind and/or in the world outside and independent of our mind.

So, tell me, dear Glenn, do you or you don't think in a box which is your box where you do your thinking? Tell me, what is that box?

In my case, the box in which I do my thinking on the existence of God and my proof and/or explanation, I find it also in my box where I do my thinking.

And that box where I do all my thinking, it is the default status of things in the totality of reality namely existence.

I didn't bring it in. You did when you referred to it as a male. I asked you before how you have come to believe that the being you believe in is a male. It's a simple question. Just a yes or a no will suffice.

Now tell me, is Jesus Christ the son of the god you speak of?

You have the patience of a Saint. ((Please excuse the reference to religion, can’t think of another phrase)). ((((Oh crap I hope I didn’t lock myself in))))

Well, you could have said that I have the patience of a mother with a newborn, or a mother with a rotten husband, but I appreciate the spirit in which your comment was intended.

And yes, you've locked yourself in. Consider yourself sequestered until this thing is over.

In regard to the sex gender of God, dear readers and posters here, I like to ask us all to not take it in a literal sense.

When we write in reference to entities that are not humans, and not biological, and not material, on the other hand, they are existing with a different essence and substance and nature from us - in brief they have in common with us: EXISTENCE, like us humans, but not material like us humans - of course we are not only material but also biological and also spiritual.

My point is that, no need unless you are a fool, to take any sex gender reference literally.

Since with us biological beings, there is the distinction in many groups like with the mammalians, the distinction of sex: male and female, thus your papa my papa are male, your mama and my mama are female.

We in English tend to also refer to what we call purely spiritual beings, like God, to refer to God as He, in the male sex gender - but no one except a chronic fool will take that literally.

So, please abstain from playing the fool in a web forum.

Now, it's been conventional in the Christian faith to refer to God as in the male sex, in English for one language, because in people speaking English, the male sex gender is supposed to be the stronger species, while the female the weaker species - that is in term of physical strength, so that everything else being equivalent, a male can hit harder and run faster normally than a female.

No need for me to explain further, unless you readers are fools who cannot comprehend the peculiarities of language.

In a lot of languages like all languages originating from Latin, they have sex for everything even not human, even a third sort of a sex, namely, neuter.

In English also and even I dare say, in Russian language, a country is referred to as a she, like we say in English, the mother tongue, who is this mother but the country, the nation, like the mother tongue of England is English; and in Russian language, they call Russia, mother Russia - who is this mother but the country, nation that is Russia.

So, please, Glennn, cease and desist already from playing the fool here.

I used to be a member of the Infidels.org forum, and moderators don't take to such fools lightly, when they notice such fools in any board, they would be given a warning, to cease and desist playing the fool: all because they don't suffer fools to be present and operating in their forum.

Funny. You are here speaking on the attributes of a mythological character that you've read about in a book in the same way that adolescents speak on the attributes of comic book heroes like Superman. And you think that I am the fool.

Why talk to this moron ? He was never a 'member'. He was thrown out for being that very 'fool' himself ! He is an obsessive neurotic who lapses into psychological projection between his turgid cutting and pasting activities.

From their site......

Okay, guys here, let return to the thread,
"Where are you God?
Forums: Religion, God, Life, Christ, Faith"

And I was talking about, see Annex below.

Annex

Dear founders and owners and operators of this a2k forum, I call on God to bless you all, for you are the most sensible in running a web forum: you don't go for any so much as a bad breath of partisanship.

More power to you!

....and there's the confirmation.

You see, dear readers here, about thinking from a box, by Glennn, it is understood that one cannot be otherwise than be limited to one's prejudices.

That is possible with people who never look into themselves, intelligently and with the intention to really probe into one's inherited views of life and the universe.

Now, from my part, I look at life and the world from the standpoint of truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of conscious intelligence, and then judge myself from all these criteria, namely:

Truths
Facts
Logic
Best thoughts of mankind...

So, I am assured by my own self-examination that I am not at all biased by my inherited prejudices.

Proof of that is that in brief I keep to the three dicta of the any at all valid box for doing one's thinking, as follows below:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.
3. Existence is in our mind and/or also in the objective world outside and independent of our mind.

So, dear readers here, all the above make up my box in and from which I do my thinking on everything at all, that can be subjected to my examination with my reasoning faculty.

Tell me about how you if you have one, put up your box of thinking.

.............

This is the common argument of a feminist (and for this reason is hard to accept the claims of the writer's as being a "man".)

While gender and sex are being confused as "the same", at the end of the day gender is not related at all with sexual relations.

When Glenn assumes the "sex of God" as "male", the funny combination of words really shows fanaticism over reasoning.

But lets play God as male.

God is not a sexual being, because same Jesus says that after resurrection humans will have no sex, this is to say, no sexual relations. This is a different kind of existence.

Then, why God is male?

Because God declared man -who is male- to be the leader, and woman -who is female- to be the follower, the companion, the subdued lover, washing clothes, cooking food, cleaning the house, changing baby's diapers, and all those things women were made for.

Then, without having a sexual life, because having Jesus was not thru sex relations, God, the leader, the almighty, declared himself as male, the Father.

Some people have doubts about God being "male" and they think that God "can be female as well", but they are wrong because in no place God identifies Himself as female, on the contrary, all the description of God in the bible always portrait Him as male.

So, sorry feminists, God is male, the Father, the man of war, the wise elderly man, the several attributes found in manly description.

The operative term there is "in the bible." The problem with your assumption is that you believe the god is a male because it says so in the Bible, and you believe the Bible because you believe it's the word of the god. You see? You use the god to validate the contents of the Bible, and you use the Bible to validate the existence of the god. What kind of a fallacy would you call that?

Dear Glennn and also your fellow atheists, on the assumption that I get you all correctly, as atheists.

But when you tell me, you are not all atheists, etc., then just tell me that you are my opponents in regard to my idea that man can and does prove God to exist with reasoning on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Yo see, dear readers here, there are Christians who hold that man has need of revelation to know God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

However, most Christians hold that insofar as God is in concept the creator cause of everything with a beginning, man can infer from the existence of things with a beginning, to the fact of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

The biggest block of Christians, i.e. Roman Catholics, it is their dogma that man can and does come to God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator of everything with a beginning, even only by his reasoning faculty alone, with inferring to God from the evidence of things with a beginning, things like you and me, babies and roses, the sun and the moon in the sky, galaxies, etc. etc. etc.

Now, addressing Glennn and Fresco and their colleagues, whatever you are, atheists or just my opponents in re How to prove God existing - from reason, here is my latest way to show you how to come to the knowledge of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Namely, with this step No. 1, asking the question as follows below, to good faith atheists and good faith theists - but not accepting God to be proven to exist even by reason alone, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning:

1. Do you exist?

Experienced and seasoned atheists of the fanatical school, namely, experienced and seasoned with all manners of evasion, or playing fools, so that I call them as diseased with the ill of Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, these kinds of atheists will even answer that they don't know exist, and nobody knows either.

THERE !!!!! RUN AWAY QUICK FROM THESE LIARS OR CRAZIES.

Now, you have just to deal with good faith sincere seekers atheists.

Dear readers, think about that, the No. 1 step for coming to the existence of God, namely, asking the question, to good faith atheists and good faith Christians who hold that they need revelation to know God exists.

No. 1. Do you exist?

Please contribute your comments to my latest methodology of proving God to exist, by asking rational questions, starting with, Do you exist?

Dear atheists here, and my fellow theists - though with you fellow theists, you don't accept my proof from reason that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning: you claim man needs revelation.

You know what, I have changed so much with talking with all you guys, like Glennn and Fresco and who else...

Now I have come to like you guys, because you are or have become familiar sights, like neighbors with their routine annoyances albeit of crazy thinking, they are still likable, if for no other reason than that it takes all kinds to live in a 'normal' world.

You coming to that realization is another proof to me that there is a God. I hope Glenn and Fresco feel the same way. I know as annoying as you are, I like you.

If you're going to quote the Bible it should be in the original Geordie.

Noo ye aal knaa hoo Moses wuz fund in the bullrushes, be Pharehs dowter (leastways that wuz hor story). Weel, yors laytor Moses an'ees lads wor workin' in the clarts b'the Nile myekin' bricks f'Phareh.

Noo one ov the gards cums up an sez,"Noo theor, Moses, Phareh wants te see ye."

So up lowps Moses from the clarts an' gans wi' the gard. "E gets t'Phareh's tent an' knocks twice on the door - 'feared Phareh 'ad a bit o' goods like.

"Cum in," sez Phareh, so in gans Moses.
"Mornin' Phareh," sez Moses.
"Mornin' Moses," sez Phareh.
"Noo luk heor," sez Phareh, gettin' strite t' the point. "Youse lads is not myekin' enuff bricks f'me pyramids. They wiz gan t'be greet big cubes, but wi' ye lot on gannin' slaa, thuv aal had t' hev pointy tops noo. Soas ye'll aal hav to myek twice as monny bricks wi' nee straa."
"Nee straa!" sez Moses, "the lads'll nivvor agree t'thet!"