Can we know god in the same way that we know a tree?

Can we know God in the same way that we know a tree?

The purpose of this question is for me to see how Christians think when they think about their god.

I would like to tell you something about myself. I am an atheist. As your can see from my profile I just turned 58. I have a number of college degrees, mostly in technology. Most of my work experience has been in the field of energy conservation. As an aside, the odds of hydrogen being the primary energy source for the majority of cars is slim to none! I believe that the plug-in battery will become the major source of energy for most cars-if and when they develop a practical battery.

Even though my education and work experience has been in engineering/technology, I think more like a scientist. In fact, I do not like most engineers. Most of them do not know how to think. Most scientists do!!!

Let us now discuss my question.

Here is my dictionary’s definition of “know”:

know v. To be cognizant of; have a concept of in the mind through seeing, reading, reading, hearing, etc.

This is the primary definition in my dictionary. My dictionary is: Standard College Dictionary, COPYRIGHT 1963 by FUNK & WAGALLIS Company, Inc.

Now I know some people (captainassassin comes to mind) do not like my dictionary-it is too old. All I have to say about this is that I am old and my dictionary is old, but we both get along just fine. I see no reason to change.

The primary definition deals with the five senses. When you reply to my question please keep this in mind. If you talk about God please keep my definition in mind. Try to keep the metaphysics down to a bare minimum.

Here are some ground rules:

in my question dealing with the Christian Bible, the following words were used to describe me-moron, idiot, baby, prick. In your reply, if you use these words or similar words I will ignore you. I will not reply to your reply. If you send me a second reply using the aforementioned words or similar words I will do everything in my power to have you PERMANENTLY BANNED from this site.

I would like it if ruben1211 not respond to my site. In his one and only reply to this site he called me an idiot. Ruben1211 did the equivalent of a hit and run. He can dish it out, but he cannot take it.

If you are a Christian please try not to use the equivalent of “God works in wondrous ways” in your reply. It really does not explain anything.

Some of the people who responded to my Christian Bible question have very dark personalities. If you reply to this question please let a little sunshine into your reply.

This is the end of the ground rules-ought you happy.

I await your replies.

by

If The Holy Spirit resides in ones Heart - that person KNOWS God. :-)

To: amblessed
From: joseph1949

Your reply is equivalent to 'God works in wondrous ways.' It explains nothing

by

Joseph1949, I think you will find it frutiful to study a branch of philosophy called epistomology. This branch of philosophy deals with the nature of knowledge.

No doubt there are Christians for whom God is subjectively just as real as a tree they see, feel, hear, taste, and smell. What we argue about is if God is objectively true. Or, does God still exist when you stop believing in him?

Thank you for your opinion - again, this is what I know to be Fact: If The Holy Spirit resides in ones Heart - that person KNOWS God (if they have recieved/accepted salvation) - one can deny, but not argue a Fact - just like Jesus Christ, joseph1949, you either accept or reject - it is abundantly clear by your statement >>> I am an atheist <<< your rejection stance...you know you have a need and it's not being met...Happy Thanksgiving !!

*sigh*

This crap again?

You're asking Christians to explain their faith, but without using 'faith' in their explanations. The question is pointless. They can no more prove to you that God exists, than you can prove that God doesn't exist.

>>>If you send me a second reply using the aforementioned words or similar words I will do everything in my power to have you PERMANENTLY BANNED from this site.

Oh, I'd like to see you do that, baby.

To: xiigzag
From: josepn1949

That's once.

To: filletofspam
From: joseph1949

Thank you for your reply.

I have studied epistomology. Epistomology deals with the question: How do we know what we know.

Epistomology has done wonderful things for science. It has tied religion into knots.

Science has given us vaccines. Religion has given us a thousand different ways to kill a witch. Enough said.

Thank you.

Everyone needs something to believe in. I myself believe in the power of oneself, and our amazing untapped abilities to create & overcome many of the hardships man has created for himself. Governments unfortunately concentrate nearly all their energy into ECONOMIES & producing wealth, even in this day & age of great apparent wisdom, very little energy is put into the sustainability of our environment. If we were to know God as we do trees, and faith was put back into that which sustains life & which we can see, touch, taste...the world would be a better place. I also believe that many people take this stance of you either accepting of rejecting something too far, then choose to ridicule if you don't believe what they believe, doing their best to strike fear into your heart...and in the past this has caused many unnecessary conflicts, resulting in many unnecessary wars, death & destruction. Despite how many people interpret the bible, and take the I'm right your misguided stance...I think it is healthy to question, and not take things at face value. If humans never questioned where would we be today? If you look at religions, and their are many...most of them have this view of being correct and true. Christians for example believe if you don't know Jesus personally, you won't be saved...I've always wondered how that applies to the millions of people that lived before Jesus...or if you were Buddhist for example, praying daily for peace & compassion...I guess they'll just burn in HELL for not know Jesus personally, at least with Buddhism they embrace all religions...and just want all beings to live in PEACE, instead of taking a the position of 'I'm right' but your going to burn in eternal brimstone, if you don't do as my book says. I also wonder what happens to all those who poor souls who are unable, for whatever reason, to follow their way. I don't think the life force of ALL beings is so choosy...and that, that way of thinking is as backward as many of the worlds governments today.

>>> I've always wondered how that applies to the millions of people that lived before Jesus <<< - if you study what Jesus did in the 3 days between His crusifiction and ressurrection, you'll find that answer.

Damn, he didn't ignore me. Liar.

I don't think he counted 'liar' or 'baby' as one of those words...

I'm sure I'll be able to study 'accurately' what Jesus did for 3 days 2000+ years ago between his crusifiction and ressurrection, in the bible...right? ...Thanks Bill, I'm sure that'll clear things up for me.

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

You seem to be fixated on the words “sign” and “crap”. I suggest that you consult your new, improved dictionary for different words. I know that my old-fashioned dictionary has several alternatives for these two words.

Now for your statement.

captainassassin, you jumped ahead. I was going to explain that if one is to believe in God it has to be through faith. It has been my understanding the most conservative Christians believe in God based on facts.

I was trying with my question to understand how Christians believe in God based on facts as one would believe in the existence of a tree.

The ultimate question for the existence of God is for another question.

by

To: xiigzag
From: joseph1949

It seems we have two misunderstandings. Those banned words were related to a reply to my question. Your “baby” was directed to one of my guidelines. You did not reply to my question, as such!!!

The second misunderstanding is in how you were using “baby”. Was it a form of endearment or was it that you think that I act like a baby.

In any event, why don’t you start over and see what happens.

by

***You seem to be fixated on the words “sign”... ***

...you mean 'sigh'

***captainassassin, you jumped ahead. I was going to explain that if one is to believe in God it has to be through faith. It has been my understanding the most conservative Christians believe in God based on facts.***

No, they believe in God based on what they 'believe' to be facts. Just as you 'believe' there is no God, placing emphasis on various resources and arguments that support your view, but inevitably cannot 'prove' it to be true.

***I was trying with my question to understand how Christians believe in God based on facts as one would believe in the existence of a tree.***

As for your thread question; factoring in the dated definition of the word 'know' that you provided, it ends up as a simple yes/no question. The answer is NO

***The ultimate question for the existence of God is for another question.***

It seems to be a VERY prominent part of your topic.

To: amblessed
From: joseph1949

sensei was able to answer amblessed's question before I did, but I can still contribute my two cents- in the three days between the resurrection and crucifixion Christ was doing 'dead' based on my reading of the Bible. You cannot do a whole lot while you are dead.

thank you. thankyouverymuch

To:captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Thank you for pointing out my typo. I stand corrected.

I would like for Christians to send in their replies to my question. I do not believe captainassassin speaks for Christians.

I am an atheist because I have no knowledge of God. Resources and arguments concerning the existence of God or the non-existence of God have no meaning for me.

by

***I would like for Christians to send in their replies to my question. I do not believe captainassassin speaks for Christians.***

Actually I do... but only the good ones...

***I am an atheist because I have no knowledge of God.***

'knowledge' meaning YOUR definition of the word, correct? Requiring any of the five senses, or combination of the five senses; in order to gain knowledge of a particular topic?

***Resources and arguments concerning the existence of God or the non-existence of God have no meaning for me.***

Then you aren't atheist.

Why, allow me.

>>>The purpose of this question is for me to see how Christians think when they think about their god.

If that's really your intention, then you shouldn't expect them to respond in your terms. Sounds like you're more interested in proving yourself right and other people wrong.

>>>I think more like a scientist.

My degree is in biology; I've been trained to think like a scientist since my sophomore year in college. Fortunately, I also like to be flexible and accept that everyone thinks differently. If you can't understand why some people believe in God... you never will.

>>>I would like for Christians to send in their replies to my question.

Too bad no matter how satisfactory their replies are you just won't give them a second thought, you're so convinced you're right.

Wow! There are some really strong emotions (mainly badly expressed) being stirred by this one! Am I allowed to answer calmly, or does everyone have to get worked up about this question?

Hope you will accept the following as a contribution to a genunine serach for knowledge:

I'm a Christian and knowing God doesn't seem to me to compare to knowing a tree.

I like trees. They are beautiful and they are an essential part of our environment. The first statement is a something I can prove by sight and the other thing is a fact I know from science - I can't see it but I believe it because scientists can explain it to me. So I know they are there and I know they fulfil an important function.

To me, knowing God is much more like knowing my family. As with the tree, I can see that my family are there and I know the social and even scientific benefit of having loved-ones around me. But actually KNOWING them is much more than those two facts!

KNOWING them means loving them, caring for them, talking to them, trying to understand them, spending time with them, enjoying their company, learning from them and working with them. As Christians we have the gift of the same kind of relationship with God. Thus it's understandable why some Christians get a bit exasperated with people who question their 'proof' for God - if you're in a relationship with someone it's a bit wierd if someone else doesn't even believe they exist.

However, I think there's no excuse for showing disrespect for a genuine question like the one that started this off.

It may seem a bit arrogant to say, 'Hey, we have this personal relationship with God', because many people think that's something reserved for Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama. However, it's actually a gift God has for everyone who asks, so it's not arrogant to claim it - it's there for you too, if you want it!

There is an inevitable 'faith factor' in any Christian's answer to this question. However, maybe by drawing analogies as I have done, you can understand what I mean about 'knowing', even if it isn't something you can accept for yourself.

Thank for asking the question - I enjoyed thinking it through and hope you find my response helpful.

***Wow! There are some really strong emotions (mainly badly expressed) being stirred by this one! Am I allowed to answer calmly, or does everyone have to get worked up about this question?

However, I think there's no excuse for showing disrespect for a genuine question like the one that started this off.***

Try reading his previous thread. It'll make more sense... -__-

OK, Joseph and Captain Assassin, I did read the previous thread (thanks for pointing it out CA) and got bored. I like this one much better.

Maybe I accidentally did something you challenged Christians about in the previous one, Joseph - I explained my faith from outside the Bible. I could have given you biblical texts or references but I can't see how they would have helped - they help me because I believe, but I imagine they'd seem irrelevant to you. It's perfectly possible to talk about our faith in everyday terms - Jesus did it all the time. Seeds and farmers, travellers on dangerous roads, landlords and tennants, lost coins...

I also really hope it's possible to do it without getting abusive. I really don't want to get into a row about my faith or yours. 'Argument' can be constructive - abuse never is.

** I would like for Christians to send in their replies to my question.**
What! and end a perfectly good Athiest / agnostic shouting match.

Not on your life.

Besides even you see what jo is doing, Why would we want to mess with him?

That's why I'M here...

*salutes*

>>> I've always wondered how that applies to the millions of people that lived before Jesus <<< - if you study what Jesus did in the 3 days between His crusifiction and ressurrection, you'll find that answer.

The verse:

1 Pet 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Here is the atheism that I ascribe to:

From the following site-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Minimally, atheism may be seen as the absence of belief in one or more gods. It has been contended that this broad definition includes newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that 'All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God'.[27] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: 'The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.'[28] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it' and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.
The view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[29] It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that 'there are no atheists in foxholes.' Atheists dispute this claim by citing examples of 'atheists in foxholes';[30] also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response.[31]

Based on the information above I have a terminal case of implicit atheism. I am like a newborn- I.e. they have no idea (knowledge) of God.

It seems that captainassassin did not know of this type of atheism. I am surprise. I thought he had universal knowledge.

Your turn captainassassin.

by

Rodney, flame wars are fun. Join in. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

To: xiigzag
From: joseph1949

Well, praise the Lord!!! I do believe I see a little bit of sunshine in your reply.
You did not directly reply to my question, but, no matter, you did not use the “bad”
words so I will reply to your “sunshine” reply.

Here is your reply:

Why, allow me.
>>>The purpose of this question is for me to see how Christians think when they think about their god.
If that's really your intention, then you shouldn't expect them to respond in your terms. Sounds like you're more interested in proving yourself right and other people wrong.
>>>I think more like a scientist.
My degree is in biology; I've been trained to think like a scientist since my sophomore year in college. Fortunately, I also like to be flexible and accept that everyone thinks differently. If you can't understand why some people believe in God... you never will.
>>>I would like for Christians to send in their replies to my question.
Too bad no matter how satisfactory their replies are you just won't give them a second thought, you're so convinced you're right.

With the above quote in mind, could you please tell me what you think of one: Richard Dawkins and two: his book “The God Delusion”.

Thank you

***Based on the information above I have a terminal case of implicit atheism. I am like a newborn- I.e. they have no idea (knowledge) of God.

It seems that captainassassin did not know of this type of atheism. I am surprise. I thought he had universal knowledge.***

I DO know the type (implicit atheism), and your conflictive & sardonic attitude toward Christians and Christianity is a strong indicator that you DON'T fit the bill.

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Quote from captainassassin:

I DO know the type (implicit atheism), and your conflictive & sardonic attitude toward Christians and Christianity is a strong indicator that you DON'T fit the bill.

My reply:

I ascribe to impilicit atheism. What I think of Chrictians/Christianity is beside the point.

by

** Rodney, flame wars are fun. Join in. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.**
Thanks but I just got my popcorn ready. . .

PLAYBALL!!! eer. . . Well you get the drift.

***I ascribe to impilicit atheism. What I think of Chrictians/Christianity is beside the point.***

Oh, DO explain that one further...

You've had over a half a century to learn about God; but you've refused to learn or consider it learning, because of a technicality resulting from both a dated dictionary and flawed logic. What you've learned as a result, is how to antagonize Christians, and that's all you've been doing. I know because I do the same thing. The only difference is that you actively do it to all Christians, but I do it REACTIVELY... to those who DESERVE IT.

!! Captain actually has a fan club of sorts on the website here. . .!! those are some big shoes you got Captain. . . . .

Him and mr_smedheader. Too bad his account got canceled.

Yeah, I know a little too much about various users on this website.

amblessed: >>>1 Pet 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.<<<

Oh ok...they still didn't know Jesus personally & how do you preach to someone thats dead? And what difference does that make? You could close your eyes and preach to the world...would that do the same thing? I'm sure if there is a God he will judge me accordingly...with or without sunday school...Thanks again for trying, PEACE be with you.
Buddhism is also a belief system which is tolerant of all other beliefs or religions. Buddhism agrees with the moral teachings of other religions but Buddhism goes further by providing a long term purpose within our existence, through wisdom and true understanding. Real Buddhism is very tolerant and not concerned with labels like 'Christian', 'Moslem', 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist'; that is why there have never been any wars fought in the name of Buddhism. That is why Buddhists do not preach and try to convert, only explain if an explanation is sought.

you cant know god or understand him because 2 be able 2 do that is 2 say you are god because you are in his likeness so who's likeness do his angel take after because a lot of his angels went bad and were sent 'down 2 earth' so seeing that christians have 2 repent every sunday 4 their sins and say that the angels are in gods likeness rnt we all no matter what color or race rnt we the forsaken angels that have 2 repent 2 get back in heaven so no one can know god untill judgement day then you will know your god because you will see how he will send your best friend and your own mother 2 hell if thats not enough I will say 2 god F you C K you strick me down right now and nothing because god cant if I dont beleve, christians are all snobs with their nose stuck in the air its not even your religion in the first place

bazz... think before you speak next time...

*** !! Captain actually has a fan club of sorts on the website here. . .!! those are some big shoes you got Captain. . . . .***

...really, a fan club? How many members? Who's the club president? Should I make t-shirts?

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Here in I will be responding to captainassassin’s past replies.

***Based on the information above I have a terminal case of implicit atheism. I am like a newborn- I.e. they have no idea (knowledge) of God.

It seems that captainassassin did not know of this type of atheism. I am surprise. I thought he had universal knowledge.***

I DO know the type (implicit atheism), and your conflictive & sardonic attitude toward Christians and Christianity is a strong indicator that you DON'T fit the bill.

***I ascribe to impilicit atheism. What I think of Chrictians/Christianity is beside the point.***

Oh, DO explain that one further...

You've had over a half a century to learn about God; but you've refused to learn or consider it learning, because of a technicality resulting from both a dated dictionary and flawed logic. What you've learned as a result, is how to antagonize Christians, and that's all you've been doing. I know because I do the same thing. The only difference is that you actively do it to all Christians, but I do it REACTIVELY... to those who DESERVE IT.

Here is my response.

Here are some definitions from my “dated” dictionary. I know that you do not like my dictionary. That is too bad!!

Christian adj. 1. Professing or following the religion of Christ; especially the divinity of Christ. 2. Relating to or derived from Christ or his doctrine. 3. Manifesting the spirit of Christ or his teachings. 4. Characteristic of Christianity or Christendom. 5. Informal Human; civilized; decent
n. 1. One who believes in or professes belief in Jesus as the Christ; a member of any of the Christian churches. 2. One who lives according to the example and teaching of Jesus. 3. Informal A human being as distinguished from brute. 4. Informal A civilized, decent, or respectable person.

Christianity n. 1. The Christian religion. 2. Christians collectively. 3. The state of being a Christian.

god n. 1. One of the various beings, usually male, in mythology, primitive religions, etc., conceived of as immortal, as embodying a particular quality or principle, as personifying or controlling a particular element or phenomenon of nature, or as having special powers or influence over some phase of life. 2. A statue, image, or symbol of such a being. 3. Any person or thing made the chief object of one’s love, interest, or aspiration: Money is his god.

God n. 1. In monotheism, the self-existent and eternal creator, sustainer, and ruler of life and the universe. 2. This Being regarded as the source or embodiment of some specific attribute, principle, virtue, etc,: God of justice. 3. In Christian Science, the divine, creative Principle; Life, Truth, and Love; Mind; Spirit.

monotheism n. The doctrine or belief that there is but one God.

The following are monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikh.

In the definitions of “Christian” and “Christianity”, I do not see the word “God”.

In the definitions of “god” and “God”, I do not see the words “Christian” and “Christianity”. I do see “Christian” Science, but it explains what Christian Scientists believe in.

As for “monotheism”, one cannot substitute monotheism for the definition of Christianity –i.e. Christianity n. 1. The monotheist religion. 2. Monotheists collectively. 3. The state of being a monotheist.

Because there is more than one monotheistic religion we cannot interchange monotheism for Christianity. We would have to say –One of the monotheistic religions.

Also, the word “divinity” would have no meaning for an implicit atheist. Since the implicit atheist has no knowledge of God he/she would never be able to grasp the meaning of “divinity”. The implicit atheist can talk about Christ, but would never be able to understand that according to Christian theology Christ was God and the Son of God.

In short God is not necessarily (need be) “Christian” or “Christianity”. One can talk about God and never have to mention anything about Christians or Christianity.

Here is my slightly revised definition of an implicit atheist: one who has no idea (knowledge) of God, Gods, god, or gods and never will have (remember, you are explaining God, Gods, god, gods to an adult that is like a newborn). The part of my adult brain that could understand the idea of God has never evolved past the newborn stage.

I believe that I have successfully shown one can be an implicit atheist and still have knowledge of Christians and Christianity. Based on the above definitions one can talk about Christians and Christianity without having to say the word “God”. This would be difficult for a Christian, but not for an implicit atheist

Your turn

Your long-winded post is irrelevant...

Once again, you place emphasis on dated dictionary definitions. But I can play along if that's your only way to debate. I took the liberty of digging up a dictionary from 1963, just for fun. Let's see... *ahem* you posted definitions for: Christian, Christianity, god, God, and monotheism. Well, you left out an important one...

Christ -- Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of the Christian religion. The Messiah whose advent as the Redeemer was foretold by the Jews. The Lord's Anointed.

Now a simple subsearch...

Lord -- God. Jesus Christ.

Oh darn, it would appear that even old dictionaries link them together. To know Christianity, is to know Christ, is to know God.

You know, all this nitpicking you do, could be easily remedied if you'd simply open an encyclopedia. Think of all the time you'd save...

* looks around *

...is ...anyone keeping score?

Not really, but go on. I want to see how far you can push without getting this thread locked.

Having trouble cooking marshmellows here.

***Not really, but go on. I want to see how far you can push without getting this thread locked.***

Well, he did nothing about your name calling. So to initiate a threadlock, I suppose I'll have to be more... volatile...

***Having trouble cooking marshmellows here.***

I'll be with you in a minute... *leans against powder keg*

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Christ -- Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of the Christian religion. The Messiah whose advent as the Redeemer was foretold by the Jews. The Lord's Anointed.

Your definition of Christ does not contain the word “God”.

Here is my definition of “Christ”:

Christ n. 1. Anointed; the Messiah; the deliverer of Israel foretold by Hebrew prophets. 2. 2. Jesus of Nazareth regarded as fulfilling this prophecy: at first a title (Jesus the Christ), later a proper name (Jesus Christ).

We have two definitions of “Christ”. I DO NOT see the word “God” in either one of them.

Implicit Atheist: one who has no idea of God (Gods, god, gods)

I do not see the word “Christ” in this definition.

This how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines “God”.

Etymology of the Word 'God'
(Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda).
God can variously be defined as:

• the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;

• the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;

• the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, 'to invoke or to sacrifice to') is either 'the one invoked' or 'the one sacrificed to.' From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, 'to shine' or 'give light'; thes in thessasthai 'to implore') come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is 'the strong or mighty one.'

I do not see the word “Christ” in this definition.

You may want to purchase a different encyclopedia.

captainassassin, can you show me where the Standard College Dictionary is not an acceptable dictionary especially for the words we are defining?

I know that you think that the words “God” and “Christ” can be used interchangeably in all contexts. This is not true. I suggest that you step back and rethink this. You are going around in circles.

by

Well, the Capt. has hit on a fundamental part of knowing God. If you, as a human, want to know God, you must first learn to know Christ. How? There are many ways in which we humans can know God. One is creation. It is His handy work. Second, by having a personal realtionship with Christ. Christ said, if you want to know My Father then you must know Me. All of the attributes that Christ exhibited here on earth are the same as the Fathers. Many times in the bible we can read that Christ said many things about Himself, not proudly or arrogantly, but truthfully. There are too many to mention here and I won't waste the space with the cut and paste. However, if there are those who would like chapter and verse, Funmail me and I go into more detail.

Since you're obviously NOT PAYING ATTENTION. I'll have to hold your hand though this...

*snaps fingers*

Now pay attention.

I never said the word 'God' was in the definition of 'Christ' ...but the word 'Lord' was. And the primary definition of the word 'Lord' (capitalized) is... GOD. Did you just overlook the subsearch?

There are no circles, the path is linear. You seem to have difficulty with straight lines... and unfortunately for you, here's another one...

BOTTOM LINE

Relying on dated dictionaries is a truly idiotic way to justify your view of God, religion, trees, cookies, whatever...

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Show me proof that the Standard College Dictionary is dated?

What you say is not proof? O.K.

You have problem with definitions. You see what is not there.

'truly idiotic way' easy now. You may break a blood vessel in Texas-size head, little green one!!!

Pathetic... absolutely pathetic. You're desperate to continue this debate, but you have NOTHING further to contribute. So, as always, you divert to hair-splitting insignificant details.

***You have problem with definitions. You see what is not there.***

WRONG! I use several different resources (old, new, and web dictionaries & encyclopedias). You've admitted to using one (that you already admitted is old), and viewing it as infallible. Again, idiotic...

Whether or not you recently added another book to your library of excuses, in order to use it as ANOTHER topic to nitpick... is IRRELEVANT.

***'truly idiotic way' easy now. You may break a blood vessel in Texas-size head, little green one!!!***

...and you broke your own rule about name calling. Which proves you've had nothing valid to say this entire time... as expected. I guess your thread will be locked down... again. Proving once again... that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this site.

To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Look again. I say nothing about name calling. I did say certain words would get you banned. You have not used those words. As you can see you are not banned.

Again, you are seeing what is not there.

captainassassin , you are losing control. Chill out my little backward talking friend.

Again, show me proof that my dictionary is dated concerning the words we are defining. If your next reply does not contain this proof I can safely assume that you have no proof!!!

Not on topic but I cannot resist. Your best buddy, G. W. Bush, has just been outed by Scott McClellan!!!
Pray for him, oh green one!!!

by

***This is the primary definition in my dictionary. My dictionary is: Standard College Dictionary, COPYRIGHT 1963 by FUNK & WAGALLIS Company, Inc.***

Hmmm... 1963... dated indeed, needs revising...

***in my question dealing with the Christian Bible, the following words were used to describe me-moron, idiot, baby, prick. In your reply, if you use these words or similar words...***

'describe you'... yeah, also known in this case as name-calling: moron, idiot, prick... suitable names given the circumstances. And exactly which 'similar words' were you referring to? Since you failed to make a complete list of offensive names, we have to assume you mean ALL names/terms/words that can be potentially offensive.

And since this is YOUR thread, you should out of decency, follow your own ground rules. But you've failed at that too. You've addressed me as 'green one' a minimum of (2) different times in this thread. And since that falls in the list of 'ALL names/terms/words that can be potentially offensive' You then have to ban YOURSELF from the site...

***To: captainassassin
From: joseph1949

Look again. I say nothing about name calling. I did say certain words would get you banned. You have not used those words. As you can see you are not banned.

Again, you are seeing what is not there.

captainassassin , you are losing control. Chill out my little backward talking friend.

Again, show me proof that my dictionary is dated concerning the words we are defining. If your next reply does not contain this proof I can safely assume that you have no proof!!!

***Your best buddy, G. W. Bush, has just been outed by Scott McClellan!!!
Pray for him, oh green one!!!***

And who assumed that he's my best buddy? And who assumed that I pray?

Actually what got the other question locked was Flaming and the flame war that was taking place and the fact the Thread was totally off subject. . . .
Subject being:
Can we know God in the same way that we know a tree?

The purpose of this question is for me to see how Christians think when they think about their god.

*** Goodluck having many Christians answer this question since most don't care for the flaming they recieve.
Now Back on Subject which is not a dictionary.

Yes, but you know his intentions are specifically that. It was the same in the other thread too. All he needs now... is a third strike...

To:captainassassin
From: joseph1949

You cannot tell me what words I find offensive.

Again, read what words I say will get you banned.

'little green one' is not prick, moron, etc.

This by last reply to you.

by

What is the first and second sritke?

by

If you two Want to argue please keep it in the funmail. No one reading this want to read this bickering back and forth.

Neal... you know his ONLY purpose on this site is to argue, for the sake of argument. That's something pricks like to do...

Lol. . . .

With a question like that...what do you expect people to do? If they don't want to read it, nobody is forcing them to...Oh great advisor, climb down from your horse.

***...Oh great advisor, climb down from your horse.***

...meaning?

We is looking for the Lone Ranger or Odin.

***...Oh great advisor, climb down from your horse.***

...meaning?

Let them debate...no need for an umpire to keep locking questions unnecessarily, warning people to stay 'on topic' etc. If people don't want to read it, no one is forcing them to do so.