IS GOD ON THE SIDE OF AMERICA?
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
i see things as they are.
materialistic????
materialistic:
1.Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
2.The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3.A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.
which one of these describes me?
if its #1 why would you use that word to describe my thought when im constantly talking about the SPIRITUAL/NON PHYSICAL aspect of things? an athiest or agnotsic would be more along those lines.
if its #2 i would NOT be a believer in a higher power/authority.
if its #3 i have shown no care or regards for worldly concerns (riches etc etc etc)
can you please explain to me in what context you are using materialistic to describe my thoughts?
the devil can bless......just curious how many times have you had to correct yourself etc etc etc in this thread?
looking at someone isnt stupid.......now answering questions for someone else etc etc etc.......thats really stupid (imho). 1.tyler durden is a fictional character. he isnt real.
2.i never said that anything was wrong with blowing up stuff....i did however say tyler was a nutcase. any guy who has split personalities,burns himself with acid,creates anarchy,beats himself up and starts an army comprised of low self esteemed wackos (an army you would be suitible for in my opinion) is a tad off........
3.you quoted a character that isnt real.....nor is he based on reality....which is why i made the statement......
4.how is this a case of hypocrisy? how am i a hypocrite? why is it that you resorted to answering a question that was not directed at you? has it ever occured to you that we would NOT be having this back and fourth posting if you have simply minded your own business?
maybe you should learn the word ***courtesy***. APPLY THAT TO THIS ENTIRE SITUATION......NOT MY ALLEGED "SARCASM"....
"KNOWIN WHEN YOU DONT KNOW NOTHIN, KNOW WHAT IM SAYIN DOOPY? ***YOU NEED TO MIND YOUR OWN***NOW HERES A SNACK SCOOBY"~~flave-MR.WOOMPTY WOOMP
:H:
materialistic:
1.Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
2.The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3.A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.
which one of these describes me?
if its #1 why would you use that word to describe my thought when im constantly talking about the SPIRITUAL/NON PHYSICAL aspect of things? an athiest or agnotsic would be more along those lines.
if its #2 i would NOT be a believer in a higher power/authority.
if its #3 i have shown no care or regards for worldly concerns (riches etc etc etc)
can you please explain to me in what context you are using materialistic to describe my thoughts?
the devil can bless......just curious how many times have you had to correct yourself etc etc etc in this thread?
looking at someone isnt stupid.......now answering questions for someone else etc etc etc.......thats really stupid (imho). 1.tyler durden is a fictional character. he isnt real.
2.i never said that anything was wrong with blowing up stuff....i did however say tyler was a nutcase. any guy who has split personalities,burns himself with acid,creates anarchy,beats himself up and starts an army comprised of low self esteemed wackos (an army you would be suitible for in my opinion) is a tad off........
3.you quoted a character that isnt real.....nor is he based on reality....which is why i made the statement......
4.how is this a case of hypocrisy? how am i a hypocrite? why is it that you resorted to answering a question that was not directed at you? has it ever occured to you that we would NOT be having this back and fourth posting if you have simply minded your own business?
maybe you should learn the word ***courtesy***. APPLY THAT TO THIS ENTIRE SITUATION......NOT MY ALLEGED "SARCASM"....
"KNOWIN WHEN YOU DONT KNOW NOTHIN, KNOW WHAT IM SAYIN DOOPY? ***YOU NEED TO MIND YOUR OWN***NOW HERES A SNACK SCOOBY"~~flave-MR.WOOMPTY WOOMP
:H:
@H
quote:
"the devil can bless......just curious how many times have you had to correct yourself etc etc etc in this thread?"
What are you talking about? What does correcting myself have to do with this quote I made?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"looking at someone isnt stupid.......now answering questions for someone else etc etc etc.......thats really stupid (imho)."
But I did not answer the question FOR anyone else. I made a statement on it, period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"1.tyler durden is a fictional character. he isnt real."
I am glad you realize this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"2.i never said that anything was wrong with blowing up stuff....i did however say tyler was a nutcase. any guy who has split personalities,burns himself with acid,creates anarchy,beats himself up and starts an army comprised of low self esteemed wackos (an army you would be suitible for in my opinion) is a tad off........"
Ok, and what did any of this have to do DIRECTLY with the quote I made???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"3.you quoted a character that isnt real.....nor is he based on reality....which is why i made the statement......"
The character making the quote doesn't have to be "real" to have a point. Somebody wrote the script for the movie, if it makes you feel better, look up who did!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"4.how is this a case of hypocrisy? how am i a hypocrite?"
Ok listen... as a hipocrite you wrote, regarding my quote, about the character "blowing things up". If you have nothing wrong with this, WHY DID YOU EVEN WRITE IT IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU DID?
quote:
"the devil can bless......just curious how many times have you had to correct yourself etc etc etc in this thread?"
What are you talking about? What does correcting myself have to do with this quote I made?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"looking at someone isnt stupid.......now answering questions for someone else etc etc etc.......thats really stupid (imho)."
But I did not answer the question FOR anyone else. I made a statement on it, period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"1.tyler durden is a fictional character. he isnt real."
I am glad you realize this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"2.i never said that anything was wrong with blowing up stuff....i did however say tyler was a nutcase. any guy who has split personalities,burns himself with acid,creates anarchy,beats himself up and starts an army comprised of low self esteemed wackos (an army you would be suitible for in my opinion) is a tad off........"
Ok, and what did any of this have to do DIRECTLY with the quote I made???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"3.you quoted a character that isnt real.....nor is he based on reality....which is why i made the statement......"
The character making the quote doesn't have to be "real" to have a point. Somebody wrote the script for the movie, if it makes you feel better, look up who did!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"4.how is this a case of hypocrisy? how am i a hypocrite?"
Ok listen... as a hipocrite you wrote, regarding my quote, about the character "blowing things up". If you have nothing wrong with this, WHY DID YOU EVEN WRITE IT IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU DID?
@H
quote:
"why is it that you resorted to answering a question that was not directed at you? has it ever occured to you that we would NOT be having this back and fourth posting if you have simply minded your own business?"
You're reaching for something tangible against me. Sorry it isn't working. I SIMPLY made a statement on the question. It is YOU who turned it into a big deal. I have nothing more to say about it. I have let it go, how about you?
Also, I can easily apologize for messing with your name, but the fact still remains that you STARTED the sarcasm. You have done it on multiple occassions. And when it comes down to it you will attempt to evade any blame from yourself onto me. It is not a weakness to apologize, H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"maybe you should learn the word ***courtesy***. APPLY THAT TO THIS ENTIRE SITUATION......NOT MY ALLEGED "SARCASM"...."
Ok. Same to you, buddy. Another attempt to evade blame and place it on me. I made a statement, you started going off. You took it for more than what it was. The courtesy to allow Vyasa in answering the question was given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
""KNOWIN WHEN YOU DONT KNOW NOTHIN, KNOW WHAT IM SAYIN DOOPY? ***YOU NEED TO MIND YOUR OWN***NOW HERES A SNACK SCOOBY"~~flave-MR.WOOMPTY WOOMP"
Thats great! here's another one...
"I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
--1st grade
LMFAO
quote:
"why is it that you resorted to answering a question that was not directed at you? has it ever occured to you that we would NOT be having this back and fourth posting if you have simply minded your own business?"
You're reaching for something tangible against me. Sorry it isn't working. I SIMPLY made a statement on the question. It is YOU who turned it into a big deal. I have nothing more to say about it. I have let it go, how about you?
Also, I can easily apologize for messing with your name, but the fact still remains that you STARTED the sarcasm. You have done it on multiple occassions. And when it comes down to it you will attempt to evade any blame from yourself onto me. It is not a weakness to apologize, H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"maybe you should learn the word ***courtesy***. APPLY THAT TO THIS ENTIRE SITUATION......NOT MY ALLEGED "SARCASM"...."
Ok. Same to you, buddy. Another attempt to evade blame and place it on me. I made a statement, you started going off. You took it for more than what it was. The courtesy to allow Vyasa in answering the question was given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
""KNOWIN WHEN YOU DONT KNOW NOTHIN, KNOW WHAT IM SAYIN DOOPY? ***YOU NEED TO MIND YOUR OWN***NOW HERES A SNACK SCOOBY"~~flave-MR.WOOMPTY WOOMP"
Thats great! here's another one...
"I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
--1st grade
LMFAO
you say you let it go but what did you do? go and make another reply right after you said you would let it go.
no you didnt simply make a statement on the question. you stuck your nose where it didnt belong. if i had wanted a statement from you or valued your opinion i would have asked you or i would have not been specific in who it was directed at. would we be having this convo/type back if you had simply left it alone? if you had minded your own business? of course not.
the fact remains that YOU were being disrespectful when you typed the response to the question. not so much as disrespectful to v but disrespectful to *ME*. if you dont see how i suggest you grow a lil bit........i have apologized to people on this board. if i am wrong i will admit that. however when you throw a rock at me dont expect me to toss a couple of pebbles your way. expect to get boulders dropped on your skull.....yeah i typed zzzzzzzzzzzz because you bore me. i told you that.
no i didnt go off. i asked you a simple question. everything else i said after that was in response to something YOU typed.
i took it as a disrespectful act,lack of character and tackiness on your part. which it clearly is.
what about the courtesy given to the person who ASKED the question???????
THATS FUNNY TO YOU? ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS BEEN SHOWN THAT IM MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS???LMAO! heres a funny one( and true by the way). "this is an A and B convo so C your way out it"...... ACTUALLY THE ONLY THING I HAD TO SAY IN REGARDS TO YOUR STATEMENT WAS THAT THE DEVIL CAN BLESS. THAT AND THE QUESTION WERE SEPERATE........BUT.....YOU'RE DAMNING YOURSELF.
NOTHING I CAN DO OR SAY CAN DAMN YOU. *YOUR* ACTIONS DAMN YOU. YOU ANSWERING QUESTIONS NOT ASKED OF YOU AND ADMITTING IT DAMNS YOU. YOU TELLING ME I MISSPELLED YOUR NAME WHEN YOU DID IT FIRST DAMNS YOU. YOU SAYING YOU WILL LEAVE THIS ORDEAL ALONE BUT KEEP REPLYING DAMNS YOU. GO BACK AND READ YOUR REPLIES. PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR "WE" STATEMENTS.
WHO ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR WHEN YOU SAY "WE"???? IF I WANTED YOUR STATEMENT I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE STEPS TO GET IT. YOU MENTIONED A PERSON NAMED TYLER AND THAT HE WOULD MAKE A GREAT VICE PRESIDENT WHEN I BOMB AMERICA. I RESPONDED BY LISTING THE ACTIONS OF THIS PERSON NAMED TYLER. ITS ALL RELEVENT. ****YOU**** ARE THE ONE MAKING A CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS FICTIONAL CHARACTER AND MYSELF (HIM MAKING A GREAT V.P.). AND YOU ADHERE TO THE WORDS OF A FICTIONAL CHARACTER WHO IS DERANGED,DEMENTED AND SHOWS DEVIENT BEHAVIOUR????? WELL I GUESS THEY SAY EVEN THE BIGGEST OF LIARS TELL THE TRUTH SOMETIMES. DID YOU READ MY #2????? CAN YOU PLEASE QUOTE THE FIRST SENTENCE? WAS TYLER BLOWING UP STUFF? YES. WAS TYLER A NUTCASE? YES. HAVE I MADE THE STATEMENT THAT TYLER WAS A NUTCASE FOR BLOWING THINGS UP?????? NOPE. WHAT DID I SAY HE WAS A NUTCASE FOR? HERE ARE MY WORDS. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN BETTER IF I SAID TYLER WAS A NUTCASE, BEER DRINKING GUY WHO BEAT HIMSELF UP? WOULD THAT IMPLY THAT I DO OR DONT DRINK BEER OR THAT I THINK ITS WRONG TO DRINK BEER? HOW IS THAT A CASE OF HYPOCRISY???????
NOT ONLY THAT BUT CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW MY THOUGHTS ARE "MATERIALISTIC"? ESPECIALLY IN THE CONFINES OF THIS CONVO. IF YOU CANT SHOW ME I WILL TAKE IT ( "IT" MEANING THIS ORDEAL) AS YOU WANTING NOTHING MORE THAN MY VALUED TIME AND ATTENTION. BY THE LOOKS OF YOUR POSTS IT SEEMS YOU WILL SAY OR DO ANYTHING TO GET IT.
*V* MADE A THREAD WITH MY NAME AS THE TOPIC. I SAID MY PEACE AND I HAVE ***YET*** TO REPLY. I TOLD V THAT I WOULD NO LONGER READ THAT THREAD OR REPLY TO IT. IM NOT SURE IF HE RESPONDED TO THE POST I MADE BUT IF HE DID THATS ON HIM. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD LET IT GO AND I HAVE YET TO READ THE THREAD OR RESPOND TO IT.......MAYBE YOU SHOULD FOLLOW IN MY FOOTSTEPS.
IF YOU'RE GONNA LET IT GO LET IT GO.
KEEP IN MIND THAT **WE** (YOU AND I) WE WOULD **NOT** BE HAVING THIS CONVO IF YOU WOULD HAVE LEFT THINGS ALONE AND NOT ADDRESS WHAT WASNT ADDRESSED TO YOU.
CONSIDER THIS:
IF A POLICEMAN PULLS YOU OVER FOR SPEEDING. ASKS TO SEE ***YOUR*** DRIVERS LICENSE AND INSURENCE DO YOU THINK ITS RIGHT FOR THE GUY WHO HAPPENS TO BE PASSING BY ON A MOTORCYCLE TO PULL OVER,START FIDDLING IN HIS POCKETS AND SHOWING THE COP HIS LICENSE? DO YOU THINK ITS RIGHT FOR THE PASSENGER OF YOUR VEHICLE TO START TELLING THE COP THAT HE OR SHE HAS ALL STATE INSURENCE BUT THEY LEFT THE DRIVERS LICENSE AT HOME????
NOW IF YOUR GONNA END IT END IT. THIS WILL SHOW IF MY "PAVLOV" THEORY HOLDS TRUE TO **YOU**.
:H:
THATS FUNNY TO YOU? ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS BEEN SHOWN THAT IM MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS???LMAO! heres a funny one( and true by the way). "this is an A and B convo so C your way out it"...... ACTUALLY THE ONLY THING I HAD TO SAY IN REGARDS TO YOUR STATEMENT WAS THAT THE DEVIL CAN BLESS. THAT AND THE QUESTION WERE SEPERATE........BUT.....YOU'RE DAMNING YOURSELF.
NOTHING I CAN DO OR SAY CAN DAMN YOU. *YOUR* ACTIONS DAMN YOU. YOU ANSWERING QUESTIONS NOT ASKED OF YOU AND ADMITTING IT DAMNS YOU. YOU TELLING ME I MISSPELLED YOUR NAME WHEN YOU DID IT FIRST DAMNS YOU. YOU SAYING YOU WILL LEAVE THIS ORDEAL ALONE BUT KEEP REPLYING DAMNS YOU. GO BACK AND READ YOUR REPLIES. PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR "WE" STATEMENTS.
WHO ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR WHEN YOU SAY "WE"???? IF I WANTED YOUR STATEMENT I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE STEPS TO GET IT. YOU MENTIONED A PERSON NAMED TYLER AND THAT HE WOULD MAKE A GREAT VICE PRESIDENT WHEN I BOMB AMERICA. I RESPONDED BY LISTING THE ACTIONS OF THIS PERSON NAMED TYLER. ITS ALL RELEVENT. ****YOU**** ARE THE ONE MAKING A CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS FICTIONAL CHARACTER AND MYSELF (HIM MAKING A GREAT V.P.). AND YOU ADHERE TO THE WORDS OF A FICTIONAL CHARACTER WHO IS DERANGED,DEMENTED AND SHOWS DEVIENT BEHAVIOUR????? WELL I GUESS THEY SAY EVEN THE BIGGEST OF LIARS TELL THE TRUTH SOMETIMES. DID YOU READ MY #2????? CAN YOU PLEASE QUOTE THE FIRST SENTENCE? WAS TYLER BLOWING UP STUFF? YES. WAS TYLER A NUTCASE? YES. HAVE I MADE THE STATEMENT THAT TYLER WAS A NUTCASE FOR BLOWING THINGS UP?????? NOPE. WHAT DID I SAY HE WAS A NUTCASE FOR? HERE ARE MY WORDS. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN BETTER IF I SAID TYLER WAS A NUTCASE, BEER DRINKING GUY WHO BEAT HIMSELF UP? WOULD THAT IMPLY THAT I DO OR DONT DRINK BEER OR THAT I THINK ITS WRONG TO DRINK BEER? HOW IS THAT A CASE OF HYPOCRISY???????
NOT ONLY THAT BUT CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW MY THOUGHTS ARE "MATERIALISTIC"? ESPECIALLY IN THE CONFINES OF THIS CONVO. IF YOU CANT SHOW ME I WILL TAKE IT ( "IT" MEANING THIS ORDEAL) AS YOU WANTING NOTHING MORE THAN MY VALUED TIME AND ATTENTION. BY THE LOOKS OF YOUR POSTS IT SEEMS YOU WILL SAY OR DO ANYTHING TO GET IT.
*V* MADE A THREAD WITH MY NAME AS THE TOPIC. I SAID MY PEACE AND I HAVE ***YET*** TO REPLY. I TOLD V THAT I WOULD NO LONGER READ THAT THREAD OR REPLY TO IT. IM NOT SURE IF HE RESPONDED TO THE POST I MADE BUT IF HE DID THATS ON HIM. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD LET IT GO AND I HAVE YET TO READ THE THREAD OR RESPOND TO IT.......MAYBE YOU SHOULD FOLLOW IN MY FOOTSTEPS.
IF YOU'RE GONNA LET IT GO LET IT GO.
KEEP IN MIND THAT **WE** (YOU AND I) WE WOULD **NOT** BE HAVING THIS CONVO IF YOU WOULD HAVE LEFT THINGS ALONE AND NOT ADDRESS WHAT WASNT ADDRESSED TO YOU.
CONSIDER THIS:
IF A POLICEMAN PULLS YOU OVER FOR SPEEDING. ASKS TO SEE ***YOUR*** DRIVERS LICENSE AND INSURENCE DO YOU THINK ITS RIGHT FOR THE GUY WHO HAPPENS TO BE PASSING BY ON A MOTORCYCLE TO PULL OVER,START FIDDLING IN HIS POCKETS AND SHOWING THE COP HIS LICENSE? DO YOU THINK ITS RIGHT FOR THE PASSENGER OF YOUR VEHICLE TO START TELLING THE COP THAT HE OR SHE HAS ALL STATE INSURENCE BUT THEY LEFT THE DRIVERS LICENSE AT HOME????
NOW IF YOUR GONNA END IT END IT. THIS WILL SHOW IF MY "PAVLOV" THEORY HOLDS TRUE TO **YOU**.
:H:
@H
in every instance you are speaking for yourself as well. And any "theory" you hold falls short. I let this go. As a matter of fact, you brought it bacc up. But, of course your reasoning is that if I hadn't typed anything in response we wouldn't be having this conversation. It has taken 2 to play the game. Thanks for playing. If it was all on me then would you be suggesting that I have power over you? Its ok because it is over...
in every instance you are speaking for yourself as well. And any "theory" you hold falls short. I let this go. As a matter of fact, you brought it bacc up. But, of course your reasoning is that if I hadn't typed anything in response we wouldn't be having this conversation. It has taken 2 to play the game. Thanks for playing. If it was all on me then would you be suggesting that I have power over you? Its ok because it is over...
yeah lets get back to it. i DONT believe that the god of the bible/torrah is with america. was he with egypt? was he with sodom and gommorah? is he with gog and magog?
now i do believe that he has people in america but i dont believe that he favors america (as a whole). think about it. if this land contains EVERY ****ABOMINATION**** on the PLANET (it does) that the god of the bible is AGAINST why would he be for it?
:h:
now i do believe that he has people in america but i dont believe that he favors america (as a whole). think about it. if this land contains EVERY ****ABOMINATION**** on the PLANET (it does) that the god of the bible is AGAINST why would he be for it?
:h:
You are mistaken on all accounts of "God being on this side and not on that side". It wasn't that God was not with egypt, sodom & gommorah, etc; it is that they, at the time, were not with God. God is omnipresent and if a majority of a nation does not adhere to His law then they have separated themselves from Him, not Him from themselves...
1.in other posts you said it was impossible for god to be seperated from man or man to be seperated from god. now you say its possible. why the switch?
2.if these nations are NOT with "god" is he still with them?
3.in MANY cases (in the bible) you can find god saying something to the effect of "i will set my face against these people" or "i will set my self against this nation". clearly this is an indication that god (the god of the bible) was/is NOT on the side of these people.
4.god being omnipresent has nothing to do with a nation adhering his law.
:H:
2.if these nations are NOT with "god" is he still with them?
3.in MANY cases (in the bible) you can find god saying something to the effect of "i will set my face against these people" or "i will set my self against this nation". clearly this is an indication that god (the god of the bible) was/is NOT on the side of these people.
4.god being omnipresent has nothing to do with a nation adhering his law.
:H:
yo i dont kno whose side god is on.......ppl just need to live they life......be nice to others n let all that ego shit go.......n its not that god not on "americas" side or "iraq" side......if anything i think hez not on BUSH'Z SIDE or SUDAM'z SIDE or anyone who does bad thingz cuz they tha fucked up onez.......n n the end they'll pay.......period
n if god is upthere just sittin round watchin all this........then i be damn.....i mean how is he gonna let all these ppl die n do nothing.....na am sayin........i mean GOD has all the powers he can do anything.......so y would he let all these ppl die n let all these punk ass bitchez down here on planet earth do the thingz they do?????????
n dont come at with any bullshit.......i blee in GOD......i kno there is a bigger powerr outthere......everyone's been told that all they life n i have no choice but to blee n god .......but what i said above always come 2 mind......so if yall kno something i dont pllllez enlight me...lace me up......am out
n if god is upthere just sittin round watchin all this........then i be damn.....i mean how is he gonna let all these ppl die n do nothing.....na am sayin........i mean GOD has all the powers he can do anything.......so y would he let all these ppl die n let all these punk ass bitchez down here on planet earth do the thingz they do?????????
n dont come at with any bullshit.......i blee in GOD......i kno there is a bigger powerr outthere......everyone's been told that all they life n i have no choice but to blee n god .......but what i said above always come 2 mind......so if yall kno something i dont pllllez enlight me...lace me up......am out
@H
quote:
"1.in other posts you said it was impossible for god to be seperated from man or man to be seperated from god. now you say its possible. why the switch?"
Absolutely there is no separation. But, in man's discriminating and categorizing mind there is. Man separates himself from God, but this is his illusion. Both are true, depending on how you look at it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"2.if these nations are NOT with "god" is he still with them?"
Yes He is. But if they do not realize the extent of God's law they will misuse it and suffer the consequences. The law is impersonal and it works the same for everyone if they adhere to it. Its sort of like this... Whether you are a priest or a thief, if you plant a watermelon seed, you will get a watermelon. People who are blind to the nature of God will attempt to misuse the law and will suffer to that endeavor. It isn't that God, Himself, is angry with this people. He knows they are lost. He has laws set in motion which work for Him. God's law is impersonal. If you adhere to it you will get the desired effect. If you don't it will be like if you forget to water the watermelon seed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"3.in MANY cases (in the bible) you can find god saying something to the effect of "i will set my face against these people" or "i will set my self against this nation". clearly this is an indication that god (the god of the bible) was/is NOT on the side of these people."
I always consider the nature of the people in the times of the bible. They were spoken to in their barbaric nature. Perhaps, God felt it neccessary to approach them this way. I do not personally believe in such a barbaric god. Its just Him speaking in regards to the people during those times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"4.god being omnipresent has nothing to do with a nation adhering his law."
ok. I was just stating that God is always there for us, whether we realize it or not. And it is our ignorance that keeps us from Him...
quote:
"1.in other posts you said it was impossible for god to be seperated from man or man to be seperated from god. now you say its possible. why the switch?"
Absolutely there is no separation. But, in man's discriminating and categorizing mind there is. Man separates himself from God, but this is his illusion. Both are true, depending on how you look at it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"2.if these nations are NOT with "god" is he still with them?"
Yes He is. But if they do not realize the extent of God's law they will misuse it and suffer the consequences. The law is impersonal and it works the same for everyone if they adhere to it. Its sort of like this... Whether you are a priest or a thief, if you plant a watermelon seed, you will get a watermelon. People who are blind to the nature of God will attempt to misuse the law and will suffer to that endeavor. It isn't that God, Himself, is angry with this people. He knows they are lost. He has laws set in motion which work for Him. God's law is impersonal. If you adhere to it you will get the desired effect. If you don't it will be like if you forget to water the watermelon seed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"3.in MANY cases (in the bible) you can find god saying something to the effect of "i will set my face against these people" or "i will set my self against this nation". clearly this is an indication that god (the god of the bible) was/is NOT on the side of these people."
I always consider the nature of the people in the times of the bible. They were spoken to in their barbaric nature. Perhaps, God felt it neccessary to approach them this way. I do not personally believe in such a barbaric god. Its just Him speaking in regards to the people during those times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"4.god being omnipresent has nothing to do with a nation adhering his law."
ok. I was just stating that God is always there for us, whether we realize it or not. And it is our ignorance that keeps us from Him...
1.how can you say both are true but say there is no seperation?
god is still on the sides of these nations????? even though they are not with him? if this is the case explain the following
1.the destruction of sodom and gommorah. if god was with them why did he destroy it?
2.the plauges of egypt. if god was with egypt why send the plagues?
3.read the book of amos and explain to me how god is with these nations when he says he will destroy them (***this is the most important***)
4.the 400 plus years of israels judgement.
5.explain to me what god means when he says he will cut someone off. they were spoken to in their barbaric nature? what?! all through out the bible he speaks like this. old and new testament.
willfully sinning keeps us away.
:H:
ps read the book of amos.
god is still on the sides of these nations????? even though they are not with him? if this is the case explain the following
1.the destruction of sodom and gommorah. if god was with them why did he destroy it?
2.the plauges of egypt. if god was with egypt why send the plagues?
3.read the book of amos and explain to me how god is with these nations when he says he will destroy them (***this is the most important***)
4.the 400 plus years of israels judgement.
5.explain to me what god means when he says he will cut someone off. they were spoken to in their barbaric nature? what?! all through out the bible he speaks like this. old and new testament.
willfully sinning keeps us away.
:H:
ps read the book of amos.
God is on the side of Good. Good is in the hearts of the righteous. If you do good then you have no worries. But if you do bad... play while you can. In due time God fixes everything.
What is good? I couldn't tell you exactly. But the root of all evil is money.
What do you live for. What do you die for. Is that good or bad?
What is good? I couldn't tell you exactly. But the root of all evil is money.
What do you live for. What do you die for. Is that good or bad?