God does not exist

only the explorer of existence is objectively true in relating to
an existence question . motion is required . any philosophy
may guide it .

 

Not many. Am I seeing that you can? Do you believe then that god is not embodied outside belief?

:-D Well, can you give us something objective to go on?

For who? You have suggested you believe god exists objectively, and so for all whether they know it or not.

 

Actually, it doesn't depend on the book, even your example of the Briggs and Stratton technical manual and your either the engine starts or it doesn't. I know of engines put together wrong that still ran, that doesn't mean that that person "interpreted" the instructions correctly, just that he didn't "interpret" them badly enough for the engine not to run.

The fact that one believes that the Bible is contradictory, in of itself shows that that person has an incorrect interpretation. The Bible does not need independent confirmations, if you have the correct "interpretation" the Bible explains itself and is not contradictory.

You see, the Bible is written in such a way that the more you understand it correctly, the better you understand it and the clearer and clearer it becomes but if you "interpret" it incorrectly the more it becomes hazy, contradictory and a mystery.

Just because an author dictates his book to a scribe, that does not mean that he is not the author and that the scribe is now the author, because he wrote it down.

Also if someone twists and distorts what you have said, that doesn't mean that he has found your "true" message, even he claims that he has.

 

So, if someone dictates to a scribe the story of Balaam's ass, wouldn't that scribe have the responsibility to check for such things as story-consistency? In fact, wouldn't the "dictator" have the responsibility to be consistent in that which they are communicating? The story of Balaam's ass has one glaring inconsistency which makes the whole account extremely unlikely. Can you find the inconsistency?

 

If so, God is not male. Gender is for procreation.

Literalist bible thumpers are wrong on that point. The male writers made God in their image.

 

Doesn't matter,
Agreement does not transcend belief.

Do you share the perspective that we are?

Potential always abounds whether you believe in it or not. What is there, I am that I am, or, thou art that, is boundless save our constructs. The observer determines to translate experience and such, is our capacity to name the animals of existence.

 

No, I don't please elucidate.

 

But it runs, which was your definition of a "correct interpretation".

Okay.

What you state is circular reasoning but that is not what I said. If you will go back and look, I mention two things that show that your "interpretation" is correct.

One, that your "interpretation" illuminates the Bible so that the whole Bible becomes easier to understand, rather than making large parts of the Bible a mystery and harder to understand.

Two, your "interpretation" shows that the Bible is not contradictory, inaccurate and a collection of primitive myths.

So the more your "interpretation" obfuscates the Bible, then the less chance it is the correct "interpretation".

 

Perhaps, if there is no God, then sure "male writers made God in their image" but if there is a God and God is the "author" of the Bible, then God had himself described in the way he wants to be viewed, as a Father.

 

well nothing is proven ie: we came from god or we evolved from whatever after all it is the theory of evolution and they theory of creationism so if you cant disprove its not correct then it must be because if it is not true then most of the time you can prove i is not true

 

Creation and creationism are two different things.

Although I do believe in creation, I do not believe in creationism.

 

you basicly said this:
"if you have the correct assumption,
then the bible explains itself"

so for the bible to explain itself, you would first need to prove that you have the correct assumption. and until then, we cannot yet assume that the bible explains itself.

 

When something is happening there is no need to assume it is happening.

The Bible explains itself, so there is no need to assume it explains itself.

 

given your statemen:
"if you have the correct assumption,
then the bible explains itself"

and the assumption:
"The Bible explains itself"

this does not imply that you have the correct assumption. because, with the wrong assumption it is possible to explain anything you want.

 

One, I never said; "if you have the correct assumption,
then the bible explains itself", I said; "if you have the "correct interpretation", then the bible explains itself".

Even then, I was saying that the Bible is always self explanatory, it is just that if you have the "incorrect interpretation" that "incorrect interpretation" interferes with you allowing the Bible give you that explanation. In other words if a person has an explanation for his actions and you don't allow him to explain, that doesn't mean he doesn't have an explanation, it just means that your actions or beliefs have not allowed him to explain.

Also, as I said; "The Bible explains itself" and since the Bible explains itself, that is not an assumption. You can call 2+2=4 an assumption if you want but that doesn't make it one and most would say that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

yes, i mistyped what you said by typing assumption instead of interpretation, but this doesn't change anything.

• 2+2=4 is something we seem to agree on and therefore, i would probably not call this an assumption.
• however, "The Bible explains itself" is not something everyone agrees on and therefore i would call this an assumption.

whether "The Bible explains itself" is an assumption or a fact should not make a difference at this point. by taking on the assumption "The Bible explains itself", i have suspended the discussion of whether it really does explain itself, to make a point:

• if "it rained" (premise)
• then "the grass is wet" (conclusion)

this does not allow us to conclude "it rained" if "the grass is wet"

this is the same as what you are doing:

• if "you have the correct interpretation" (premise)
• then "The Bible explains itself" (conclusion)

this does not allow us to conclude "you have the correct interpretation" even if "The Bible explains itself"

 

To who? In who? If god is already embodied, who is god?

I share the perspective that we are, not the perspective that we are 'god'. You know this.

Potential is actual, but only as potential. Are you a translation of the superhuman? I'd say you might be a relation.

 

It's alter is our own heart. Try as I might, I cannot name it, only overwhelmingly I am grateful. To what? For what? That I am that I am.

I feel we are all good, you know this.

We are always in a state of becoming.

My ethnic origin is midwestern american hick. Is the superhuman something you believe in?