"Adonis" <zerocalor
...@msn.com> wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>> I missed your post somehow.
>> Kindly note that the followup-to header is now
>> set to alt.christnet.theology.
>> If you are not acquainted with ontology,
>> you would not be able to comprehend what I'm saying.
>> But I'm willing to try over and over again.
Same basic line that catholic's use," it's a mystery my son"; which I regard as
crap.
>> First, faith without doubt is suspect.
>> Faith without doubt is blind faith.
>> As such, it is actually detrimental
>> to your spiritual growth.
Which is an oxymoron. The very fact that a christian has faith in a being,
sprite, god what ever you want to call it; that can not be totally proven or
not
proven to exist is blind faith. How can you possibly have a strong belief,
complete confidence, great loyalty too a belief ( the meaning of faith ) when
you have doubt.
>> Q1: Did God create the universe and all that is in it?
>> Yes, God is even prior to existence.
>> God is also creating everything here and now.
By that statement you are saying this god is present, and is in some way shape
and form interacting in the world as we know it today. Yes or no.
>> Q2: Is God the main character of the Bible?
>> Yes, its writers are definitely trying to
>> describe the same and only god.
>> Whether what they have done is correct or not is
>> more up to you and the Holy Spirit in you.
>> Without faith, you would not understand much.
Again an oxymoron. There is debate and has been debate well before the bible
was
complied, I believe in about AD 400, as to the exact authorship of the many
manuscripts allowed to be compiled into the bible. Roughly 80 other works were
looked at and rejected for a number of reasons. There is also the issue of the
difference in the catholic compilation and the protestant compilation. If you
have one god, and that one god is trying to get to know it's creation ( seems
to
be a problem here ) so it "inspired" a few people to be it's official
spokesperson and official author and 3000+ years later there is still confusion
as to the validity, of this god. It's not doing a very good job.
>> Q3: You could do a much better job of defining God.
>> If you think you know exactly what God is,
>> you are most likely talking about an idol.
>> God is funny that way, and that's exactly why
>> God is so powerful and comprehensive.
>> Just do your best to get a glimpse of His shadow
>> or listen to His whisper once in a while.
An idol and god are one in the same. God is not powerful. God is not
comprehensive. A powerful god would be known about with out any doubt. It would
not take philological discussion to try to hammer out what this god is all
about.
>> --
>> monkfish
>> * Kindly note that the followup-to header is
>> set to alt.christnet.theology.
