When I say "fake stuff">

When I see this, I think of
Michael Savage's: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."

Are people what they are, just because they say they are?

The world is based on lots of BS.
(because human lies and liars are in the equation)

(Not only lies to my face, but lies to themselves)

Liberals never seem to be what they pretend to be. They certainly don't do what they pretend to do.

Atheists seem to be about hatred of religion, and hatred of worshipers, not, "does God exist?"

So I guess I come down to a version of OCF:

<OhioChessFan:

my philosophy of life is that it's a search for truth.>

The real world decides things.

All that matters is, are you what your mouth is telling me you are?

If not, you're a liar.
The rest is easy.

What I am standing by is this:

<<<<<<<>>>>>>Man just cannot fully comprehend what is of God. Therefor man cannot have a <definitive understanding> of a thing that is of God.>

You can comment all you like! Hell, you *did* comment, and I didn't put you on ignore. We are still talking. But you cannot have the definitive understanding of the subject, since it is of God.

As I was shoveling snow the other day I was fleshing out my thinking on this. It really exemplifies my issues with monotheism. This mindset of many monotheists on various issues, that they have a monopoly on truth.

Wrong, that isn't what happened at all. You said

<Big Pawn: Okay, I'll answer this tidbit one more time and then move forward with the conversation. >

In other words, "I'll have the last word, declare myself to be correct, and move on no matter what you say."

Well, no, excuse me, but I will not just let you brush off my argument with a "I'll just answer one more time". In fact, is isn't even an argument, but a truism. You, a human, simply cannot have a or the definitive understanding of any thing that is of God.

You can comment all you like! Hell, you *did* comment, and I didn't put you on ignore. We are still talking. But you cannot have the definitive understanding of the subject, since it is of God.>

Really?

Let's examine.

God created everything, therefore, God created numbers.

2+2=4

Can I say that? I thought we can't have a definitive understanding of a thing of God, and since God created numbers it is a thing of God.

<You said that we cannot "disagree", that I am just wrong. Uh, no. It is *your opinion* that I am wrong, but it is not an objective fact.>

I don't have any opinions.

<In fact, is isn't even an argument, but a truism. You, a human, simply cannot have a or the definitive understanding of any thing that is of God.>

Again, 2+2=4. Numbers are a thing of God since he created them. Do I have a definitive understanding of the statement 2+2=4?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O8...

Enjoy!>

I don't have any opinions.>

Well, I got a hearty laugh out of this, even if you are being sincere.

I guess Archie Bunker didn't have any opinions either!

<God created everything, therefore, God created numbers.>

Wrong. Numbers (and mathematics) are human creations.

<2+2=4

Can I say that? I thought we can't have a definitive understanding of a thing of God, and since God created numbers it is a thing of God.>

Your conclusion is erroneous because your first assertion is erroneous.

It is also erroneous because you have misidentified your own statement.

I will give you a little help. "2" and "4" are numbers. "2+2=4" is mathematics.

<<You said that we cannot "disagree", that I am just wrong. Uh, no. It is *your opinion* that I am wrong, but it is not an objective fact.

In fact, is isn't even an argument, but a truism. You, a human, simply cannot have a or the definitive understanding of any thing that is of God.>

Again, 2+2=4. Numbers are a thing of God since he created them. Do I have a definitive understanding of the statement 2+2=4?>

Apparently not. See above for an explanation.

<You are trying to say that I have to have a definitive understanding of a thing of God (what's that?) in order to say that once you are born of God, you can't be unborn of God (which is "falling away") but there is no good reason to think that what you've said is true.>

Lots of stuff to say about this. First of all, you and I have a different definition of the phrase "fall away". Unborn of God? I don't even talk like that - it's your phrase.

For me "fall away" means to quit the church, quit reading the Bible, quit praying.

Second of all, you missed the point of the story about Nicodemus in John's Gospel. The author was trying to get his reader to not make the mistake of confusing an analogous event with the actual event.

The actual event is the believer receives a new spirit. How to convey that to people so they get the point? What person is newer than a baby? None other. So the being born analogy was to get the point across of the believer having a new spirit in Christ.

And that is tripping you up because now you are thinking of it in a way the author didn't want you to, which is the point of putting Jesus' rebuke of Nicodemus into the text.

<but there is no good reason to think that what you've said is true.>

Right back at you. No good reason to think your "not possible to fall away" statement is true.

In fact just the opposite, and here is why I think you are so dismissive of a few things. You are dismissive of intellectual analysis of Christianity. You are dismissive of the experiences of a large percentage of church members. You even said you don't go to church much.

Because you want to hold tenets that are in contradiction to some of the tenets of these two groups (Christian intellectuals being one group and large numbers of the Body of Christ being the other).

And I am not criticizing that. You have your own beliefs that you have come to. But that's just the point, they are your beliefs. They are not objective facts.

Is that why you dislike the Hebrews definition of faith? The substance of things <hoped for>, the evidence of things <unseen>? This robs you of your certitude, so you deride it and say nobody understands it!

When I am talking about things that are "of God" you very well know what I am talking about. Faith, free will, predestination, salvation, being born again. These central issues of the Christian faith.

These things are of God - they come to Man from God (*if* indeed they do), whereas numbers, mathematics, and other stuff too like skyscrapers, music, and these kinds of things are creations from man's spirit, soul and mind.

But the things that are of God, *these* are things which humans experience with God, and if God is personal, and each human is an individual, then actually there is no good reason to believe that you or anyone else can have a definitive understanding. In other words, a universal understanding that applies to everyone the same way.

I hope it didn't offend you - I kinda unleashed my Rogoff persona in it.

But I hesitate to delete it because I like <Rogoff tga>. He is smug, arrogant, and sharp.

I let him roam free from Rogoff's page because of this:

<That's just a smokescreen. That's a way of saying, <big pawn, I want out of this conversation and this is how I'm going to get out of it>.>

So when God created the stars before he created man, there weren't a number of stars?

God could't measure anything before humans created numbers?

Was God unaware of how many of this or how many of that there were, until man created numbers?

God is omniscient, <tga>, which means he knows all true propositions. 2+2=4 is a true proposition. If man were to be extinct tomorrow, God would still know all true propositions.

Here's another thing of God that we can know definitively. God exists. We can know that. A thing of God's is creation, all that exists. We can know definitively something about this thing of God (creation): it exists.

Moral values are a thing of God, as they are part of his nature. We can know definitively that moral values exist.

God is omniscient, so we can say this about this thing of God (only God is omniscient): God knows all true propositions. We have a definitive understanding what it means to know all true propositions, and we call that omniscience and it applies only to God.

The prophets who God revealed things to, like John the Baptist, what God revealed to them, they had a definitive understanding of. If God told Isaiah that to tell the King of Israel that he was going to die, then Isaiah knew definitively that he was going to die, and that knowledge is a thing of God.

So this whole idea that I can't know that a person cannot be unborn of God because it's a thing of God (whatever that is) and (you assert) no one can definitively know (rather than know) a thing of God, has no real meat to it.

And, you haven't made the case that one needs to have a definitive understanding of anything to comment rightly on it. We can say that a car is a four door without having a definitive understanding of cars.

You haven't made an argument that God can't reveal to us something he wants us to know, and therefore allow us to comment rightly on it.

Finally, you're here arguing that since you can't definitively know a thing of God (whatever that is) then you can't comment rightly on it, but, you're commenting that you WERE born of God and DID fall away!

And that is tripping you up because now you are thinking of it in a way the author didn't want you to, which is the point of putting Jesus' rebuke of Nicodemus into the text.>

I'm shocked at this. I get the feeling you're not reading my responses then. I clearly made the case that Jesus was telling Nicodemus not to take it literally but to realize that like being born, he has no part in being born again of God. And, to our point, like being born, you cannot be unborn.

I said this clearly, just as I said it now, but your comment shows that you are unaware of that.

<So the being born analogy was to get the point across of the believer having a new spirit in Christ.>

I didn't say I disliked it. I said that I asked you what faith was and instead of hearing from you, you just quote a bible verse at me, which is pointless because the bible cannot be interpreted.

Just look at how long the bible has been around. Billions of people have earnestly tried to iron it out in the spirit of genuine fellowship, and what is the result? Today we have thousands of denominations!

That goes to show that people do not understand the bible. People understand 2+2=4 so we don't have thousands of groups of people that contest that.

But the point is that the words are dead unless they change your life. Reading the bible with an intellectual mindset is just to go over a bunch of dead words. But the bible is supposed to be the living word! So if we don't understand how to give life to faith in our own lives, it remains dead on the paper. Therefore, I ask <you> about what faith means to <you> and I asked <you> how does one get faith if he doesn't already have it.

Quoting scriptures won't help you. The Devil quoted scriptures to Jesus.

But I hesitate to delete it because I like <Rogoff tga>. He is smug, arrogant, and sharp.>

No worries, I address this tid bit by the way.

At times <rogoffians> , including me , joke around being bombastic etc. That apart, recent conversations in this forum were very promising - teachings of Jesus to change oneself at deep , inner level (spiritual progress) to eventually be completely free from emotions; being in thoughts/imagination etc as opposed to being still when all the answers come to us spontaneously from timeless and so on...

I wish more people participate in the conversations from that focus - to have teachings of Jesus in our life for deep change , for spiritual progress...

Game 30.

French Tarrasch Main Line

https://www.amren.com/commentary/20...

This is a really interesting article. Here's a snippet.

< Buchanan: “[T]he preservation of a unique people and nation” is too important for democracy to decide.

“The Western democratic system is hailed by the developed world as near perfect and the most superior political system to run a country,” mocked China’s official new agency.

“However, what’s happening in the United States today will make more people worldwide reflect on the viability and legitimacy of such a chaotic political system.”

There is a worldwide audience for what Beijing had to say about the shutdown of the U.S. government, for there is truth in it.

According to Freedom House, democracy has been in decline for a dozen years. Less and less do nations look to the world’s greatest democracy, the United States, as a model of the system to best preserve and protect what is most precious to them.

China may be a single-party Communist state that restricts freedom of speech, religion and the press, the defining marks of democracy. Yet Beijing has delivered what makes the Chinese people proud—a superpower nation to rival the mighty United States.

Chinese citizens appear willing to pay, in restricted freedoms, the price of national greatness no modern Chinese generation had ever known.

The same appears true of the Russian people.

After the humiliation of the Boris Yeltsin era, Russians rallied to Vladimir Putin, an autocrat 18 years in power, for having retrieved Crimea and restored Russia to a great power that can stand up to the Americans.

Well, I got a hearty laugh out of this>

That comment is not helpful.

Worse, it shows you did not grasp the conversation at all.

See,

There are two 'states':

1)what <big pawn> said 'thoughtless awareness' . a state free from thoughts but yet we are 'aware' . in deep dreamless sleep also we don't have thoughts but we are not 'aware' either. 'Thoughtless awareness' - a deep dreamless sleep like state while awake. The phrase for this in Sanskrit/Hindi is jagrit sushupti (wakeful sleep). This is the state that is referred in the quote - 'be still and know that I am god'

2)second state is what <big pawn> called 'living in thought/imagination'.

In second state , there are emotions -always. Degree may vary. There will be always some discontent, some restlessness in second 'state'.

In first state , there are no emotions, there is restfulness and a different kind of happiness which is beyond mundane experience of pleasure/pain. And intelligence and love (Jesus kind of love). Source of all the creativity is first state.

Opinions belong to second state.

Me too, especially lately. You need to get your old avatar back.

Hahaha.

That is hilarious <ketchuplover> :)

On a serious note, good conversation by <big pawn>. I was reminded of deepak Chopra. These conversations are exactly same as the conversations of deepak Chopra. I used to read Chopra many, many years. He is good but talks only kindergarten level stuff so at one point I had to move on for stuff at higher level.

Too bad <thegoodanarchist> could not understand even this kindergarten level stuff.

And <diceman> was deriding <big pawn> as femto Chopra. Sad.

Femto Chopra, as lonely as the Maytag repairman:

<thegoodanarchist: <Nisjesram> posted in my forum. I deleted his post without reading it. >

< 
optimal play: I just deleted a post from <Nisjesram> and placed him on "ignore".>

< 
TheFocus: I deleted <Nis>'s post from my forum also.>

Femto Chopra:

Silent/still insignificance, in search of significance.

<Is Democracy on the Way Down?>>

This is exactly what I was talking about:

<diceman:
Are people what they are, just because they say they are?

The world is based on lots of BS.
(because human lies and liars are in the equation)>

First of all, we have a representative republic, not "Democracy."

<Is Democracy on the Way Down?>

Democrat party, fascist wannabees, along with a
Goebbels media, sure do hope so.

My freedom/liberty, Constitution, individual success, get in their way.

<The Western democratic system is hailed by the developed world as near perfect and the most superior political system to run a country>

(A classic liberal setup)
Yes, be it on the world stage, or at the UN, "praise" for the Untied States does get tiresome! Does anyone not like us?

<mocked China’s official new agency>

Yes, when one judges freedom/liberty,
you ask tyranny/oppression.

<However, what’s happening in the United States today will make more people worldwide reflect on the viability and legitimacy of such a chaotic political system>

Interesting, when government lies/failure turns a "Democrat" party into an anti American party. Who embraces
illegals over Americans, and is empowered by government slavery, they don't question "its" legitimacy?

<There is a worldwide audience for what Beijing had to say about the shutdown of the U.S. government>

When they have time.
The "worldwide audience" is typically
focused on my borders being open or not.

(Of course, with the requisite significant bovine >

Hahaha.

Well, I liked this conversation <big pawn> was having about teachings of Jesus and philosophy and I thought <cormier> , <thegoodanarchist> , <optimal play> , <thefocus> ,<diceman> will like them too.

Seems <thegoodanarchist>, <optimal play> , <the focus> did not even understand conversations of <big pawn>.

<diceman> seems to be spot on however. <diceman> quite right that these conversations are exactly like the conversations of deepak Chopra :)

Many, many years ago , I used to engage in these conversations. Good revisiting those conversations :)

These days , I engage in conversations at a much higher level usually.

You right , <diceman> , it is very 'lonely' at top :)

Sometimes , I play with kindergarten kids and try to help them , teach them :)