I'm a Theist

[Age]

But remember, just because some thing is not known how to be said, expressed, nor shared YET, that does not mean that it can not come about, soon enough.

Age, if you know what God is, why don't you just say it. Most people are, "open," to plain simple explanations.

Mind, and, Universe. (Could I explain It anymore plain and simply?)

By the way, I have said this a few times ALREADY. I have NOT yet found to much OPENNESS regarding this in people though.

[Age]

More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows.

more power to you for being a Theist - as long as one of goodwill.

I'm an Atheist myself.

its good for you to listen to other viewpoints too BTW.

as it is me!

lol.

Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God.

IMO the debate - doe God exit? or not? is folly.

To me "debating" altogether is folly, but this is off topic.

man/me/you lack the ability to know for sure about the matter, and for me it is irrelivent.

Where do 'you', people, think the misconception that "the ability to know for sure that God exists or not" IS LACKING comes from exactly?

my nature is too low to "know" if your God exists or not, so not fixated on the matter personally.

Not being fixated on this, or any thing, is PERFECTLY fine and normal. But WHY the insecurity, lack of self-esteem, or lack of self-knowledge to KNOW that the NATURE within human beings ALLOWS them to discover, learn, and understand absolutely ANY and EVERY thing?

This Nature is what separates human beings from ALL other (known to them) creatures.

The human animal is the only known (to them) animal with True Intelligence, and a Truly amazing brain to capture and store the knowledge that they obtain.

Just because one human being, or one generation of human beings, does not YET know some thing, that then does NOT mean forever more that thing thing will NEVER become known.

I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

??? dont follow, tell me more if willing .

I also did not understand this, and also share more if you like.

[Age]

More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

But proving God exists is FAR easier and far simpler than proving God does not exist.

no, man is too low of nature to know if god/s exist or do not.

What does "too low of nature to know" actually mean?

so, no your above statement is wrong either way.

Remember what 'you' are saying here is being proposed as and claimed as a Truth that is forever more True. Can you back up and support this claim of 'yours'?

Now, if human beings are supposedly "too low of nature to know if god/s exist or do not", then how are human beings "too high of nature to know" some thing supposedly like what is thee Truth forever more?

[Age]

Why do you use the term "so called Atheist"?

yes, i'm curious about that as well.

I have already replied to this clarifying question, before this post of yours.

I wrote:
Because terms like "atheist", like "theist", like "christian", "muslim", "jew", "buddhist", "american", "russian", "chinese", "teacher", "scientist", "priest", et cetera, et cetera are NOT actual real things. They can NOT be uniformly defined, accepted, and agreed with by all as well as being one an actual thing itself. What they are are just parts of an actual thing. What that actual real thing is is a human being, who just thinks differently from "another" human being. So, ALL of these labels placed onto human beings are just that - just labels or just names, and NOT real actual things, in and of themselves.

Human beings are real things, which, unfortunately, place incorrect labels/names on each other. It is 'people' who place incorrect labels and names onto "other" people.

Just out of informing, it is also the placement of (incorrect) separate names and labels, and the placing of human beings into these separate named and labeled groups, which is a huge cause of the actual friction, fighting, and warring between ALL of 'you', human beings.

I wonder how many of my posts are NOT being received by some people here? Now, obviously NOT everything I write gets read, and so some things get MISSED, but two posters asking me two questions on EXACTLY the same thing I have being previously ASKED, and previously ANSWERED, in the exact same thread. This seems to be to much of a coincidence. I would really like to KNOW if my posts where I have answered the following questions previously and the question; Why do you use the term "so called Atheist"? have actually appeared or not?

I was just asked by another poster:
Age, if you know what God is, why don't you just say it. Most people are, "open," to plain simple explanations.

When it was the very preceding post I had already responded and answered the question:
So what is that real-thing that is termed with the word 'God'?

I answered the two relatively SAME questions with the EXACT SAME response.

God IS
Universe.
Mind.

The plainest and simplest explanation I can give. But, which can also be elaborated on and explained, in much greater detail and in a way that can be PROVEN TO BE TRUE, through religious texts AND scientific methods.

Most Atheists use logic to determine that they have no proof of God's existence but since when does God or the Universe follow Human rules of logic?

yes...............and yes.

Also most, so called, "theists" use (very loosely termed) "logic" to determine that they have proof of God's existence. Proof of this can be seen throughout this forum, as well as countless other places.

But, as I have already agreed with, ' human "logic" ' can be TOTALLY and UTTERLY FLAWED and USELESS.

[BardoXV]

I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

??? dont follow, tell me more if willing .

I also did not understand this, and also share more if you like.

Jesus taught in Parables and he had to learn it somewhere. I've only looked at the story of Noah in any depth and can see where this is a Biblical misinterpretation of the original story, for example, Noah looked out and "All the world was covered with water" all that he could see, but how far can you see from the deck of a boat? So I attributed Jesus's teaching in Parables to his understanding of the Old Testament. I have also learned that the book of Job was written as a story and not the literal story of a man.

[BardoXV]

But, as I have already agreed with, ' human "logic" ' can be TOTALLY and UTTERLY FLAWED and USELESS.

But 'human logic is the only tool most people have to use.

[Age]

But, as I have already agreed with, ' human "logic" ' can be TOTALLY and UTTERLY FLAWED and USELESS.

But 'human logic is the only tool most people have to use.

You wrote: "but since when does God or the Universe follow Human rules of logic?"

I was just agreeing that because human (so called) "rules" and "logic" IS flawed, and as implied, God's or the Universe's Rules and Logic is NOT flawed, then this Universal 'tool' would be a much better one to use than the human one.

Human "logic" is NOT the only tool most people HAVE to use, but I agree that it is the ONLY one they ('try to') use.

Universal Logic can be used, and if and when used provides an absolute thorough AND True result.

[BardoXV]

I was just agreeing that because human (so called) "rules" and "logic" IS flawed, and as implied, God's or the Universe's Rules and Logic is NOT flawed, then this Universal 'tool' would be a much better one to use than the human one.

Human "logic" is NOT the only tool most people HAVE to use, but I agree that it is the ONLY one they ('try to') use.

Universal Logic can be used, and if and when used provides an absolute thorough AND True result.

Perhaps I should have said human logic is the only logic some people know about, but these people seem to be the loudest.

BTW I agree that being the loudest doesn't make them right, just they are the ones we hear the most.

[RCSaunders]

Age, if you know what God is, why don't you just say it. Most people are, "open," to plain simple explanations.

Mind, and, Universe. (Could I explain It anymore plain and simply?)

Well, that clears it up right away. So your God is, a "Duality": Mind and Universe, one less than the Christian Trinity. Is that right?

I appreciate the explanation, but am a little confused by one thing. I'm sure you can straighten it out. Is your Mind/Universe God natural or supernatural?

[SpheresOfBalance]

More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

Anyone can choose to adhere to any of the antiquated programs that humankind created in those more ignorant times to quell their fears and explain the unknown. I would never deny them that right. In fact I would support it, if it somehow soothed them, it somehow supports their psyche.

But it's science that reins supreme, that address's uncovering the absolute truth of things.

As an agnostic I can see that there may be a creator of all that is the universe, or that it may be the universe itself that is the creator of life.

But I'll not let anyone's belief sway my resolve, I shall always have my finger on the pulse of true knowledge, the pursuit of the absolute truth of things that started with philosophy; the father of all science.

Edit: removed a comma.

[Age]

I was just agreeing that because human (so called) "rules" and "logic" IS flawed, and as implied, God's or the Universe's Rules and Logic is NOT flawed, then this Universal 'tool' would be a much better one to use than the human one.

Human "logic" is NOT the only tool most people HAVE to use, but I agree that it is the ONLY one they ('try to') use.

Universal Logic can be used, and if and when used provides an absolute thorough AND True result.

Perhaps I should have said human logic is the only logic some people know about, but these people seem to be the loudest.

BTW I agree that being the loudest doesn't make them right, just they are the ones we hear the most.

Agree.

[Age]

Age, if you know what God is, why don't you just say it. Most people are, "open," to plain simple explanations.

Mind, and, Universe. (Could I explain It anymore plain and simply?)

Well, that clears it up right away. So your God is, a "Duality": Mind and Universe, one less than the Christian Trinity. Is that right?

No NOT at all.

Mind and Universe is NOT "duality". And, are you saying just because there was an ASSUMED two and that is obvious one less number than three that somehow makes it "less" than some thing else's 'trinity'?

If yes, then when 'you' say "less" do 'you' mean by numbers only or by some thing else?

If some thing else, then what is 'that' exactly?

By the way, 'you' ask me to to say what I KNOW God IS, and hint to explain it in plain simple terms, because most of 'you' are OPEN to that, so I explained it in the most simplest of terms. Then, you write; "Well, that clears it up right away", hinting that 'you' were NOT actually OPEN to a plain simple explanation at all really. Or, did you actually MEAN "that DID clear it up right away"?

'you', adult human beings, KNOW what the Universe and what the Mind IS, correct?

If not, then just asking 'me' plain simple clarifying questions is all that is really NEEDED now, to CLEAR EVERY thing up.

This is what happens with 'you', adult human beings, 'you' BELIEVE and EXPECT "others" can explain things in simple terms BUT are completely incapable of doing this your own selves.

I CAN explain ALL-OF-THIS so that EVERY thing is fits together very neatly to form a picture perfect CLEAR view of things. However, I can NOT do it instantly and without KNOWING what parts NEED more explaining and/or more clarifying.

I appreciate the explanation, but am a little confused by one thing. I'm sure you can straighten it out. Is your Mind/Universe God natural or supernatural?

NATURAL, of course.

OBVIOUSLY there is NO thing that is "super", above, beyond, nor outside of NATURAL. This includes ALL of 'you', human beings, and ALL of what 'you' DO and CREATE, as well. ALL of this is a part of what is JUST NATURAL.

[RCSaunders]

I appreciate the explanation, but am a little confused by one thing. I'm sure you can straighten it out. Is your Mind/Universe God natural or supernatural?

NATURAL, of course.

OBVIOUSLY there is NO thing that is "super", above, beyond, nor outside of NATURAL. This includes ALL of 'you', human beings, and ALL of what 'you' DO and CREATE, as well. ALL of this is a part of what is JUST NATURAL.

If that's really what you mean, perhaps you are a Tathist: The Wisdom of Tathagatagarbha

[Age]

I appreciate the explanation, but am a little confused by one thing. I'm sure you can straighten it out. Is your Mind/Universe God natural or supernatural?

NATURAL, of course.

OBVIOUSLY there is NO thing that is "super", above, beyond, nor outside of NATURAL. This includes ALL of 'you', human beings, and ALL of what 'you' DO and CREATE, as well. ALL of this is a part of what is JUST NATURAL.

If that's really what you mean, perhaps you are a Tathist: The Wisdom of Tathagatagarbha

A common practice of adult human beings is 'TRYING TO' put yourselves into compartmentalized separate groups. The trouble with 'trying to do this' is it is just NOT possible, in a collectively agreed sense.

Any group that end in "ist", or any religious group, or ANY group at all for that matter, except for the One group that I actually belong to and am, are just separat-ist groups, which are instantly an incorrect use of terms. The One can NOT actually be separated NOR divided.

Besides the fact that the 'I' is NOT even a human being anyway, 'trying to' put 'I' into any one thing, other than what 'I' Truly am, speaks volumes about how human beings TRULY do NOT YET KNOW how to answer the question; 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly.

Now, maybe some of what 'I' say and write here, in this forum, comes across also in that link your provided. But this is what happens occasionally in regards to what I say. That is; some people will refer me to some book, some teaching, or some saying, and 'try' and put me into that group as well. But, NOTHING of what I say comes from any one separatist group, not does it belong solely to any one separatist group. What I say are just My views of things, which naturally have just come from what I have observed/experienced.

I am NOT "perhaps" ANY thing, other than what 'I' really AM.

If what I say coincides with any one group of sayings or teachings, then that is perfectly fine. But this does NOT detract from the fact that I SEE the falsehoods AND the truths in ALL sayings and teachings, EQUALLY.

I had a very quick glimpse, at just a very tiny fraction, in that link. Now all of it might be great reading, or not, I have no idea, but if it does NOT do what I am seeking, then it is NOT what I am really looking for, nor belong to. Obviously it has NOT done what I am doing. What I have set out to do, and am doing, is creating a Truly Peaceful "world/way of life" for EVERY one. I KNOW HOW this will be achieved, I am just waiting for the RIGHT people to come along to explain this to. Until then, I am here, in this forum, learning how to communicate better with 'you', "other" human beings. The reason I am here, in this forum anyway, is to just learn how I can be better heard AND fully understood, by EVERY one. I am NOT here, in this forum, to be 'tried to be' placed into some group.

By the way, what do you mean when 'you' wrote; "If that's really what you mean"? What did you think I meant if that was NOT what I really meant?

Also, Why would you even ASSUME I would clarify a question, or even express any thing, if it was NOT what I Truly meant?

Have I shown ANYWHERE throughout this forum where I have NOT been TOTALLY Honest at all?

[henry quirk]

Any group that end in "ist", or any religious group, or ANY group at all for that matter...are just separat-ist groups

A lot of the time, this is true. Sometimes, though, an ist or an ian is just a descriptor, not a statement of affiliation or separation.