There is no YOU to die or be born.

[Immanuel Can]

But to disbelieve is to be soley identified with just the ego self that apparently is born and will die with no real awareness of what it means to be immortal. Would this be fair to say? you can make moderations if it's off the mark.

The problem I see with this interpretation is that nothing in the text really supports it. It basically says something completely different. For example, "awareness" isn't even mentioned, and "belief" is not it. It also makes the object of "awareness" out to be "the self," which is also not at all suggested by the text. The text has the object of faith being Jesus Christ Himself, not the "self." And that's just the start of the departure.

...without knowing birth, you cannot know what is death...death being what's known as the second birth...is that fair to say? ....I'm interested in how you would say it IC?

No, this is not about natural birth. To see that, you have to read back a little earlier, and see what Nicodemus's question to Jesus actually was. He made the same mistake -- thinking natural birth might be in view. You'll see, though, that he was wrong.

However, a gift cannot be forced upon people, without it ceasing to be a gift and starting to be an act of violence against their will.

Thanks, I understand this, insofar as there is the choice to accept the gift or not. And this is what is meant by free will, we either accept the gift in it's entire package or we reject it, it's entirely our choice, yes that makes sense, thanks IC

Yes, that's right.

[Dontaskme]

But to disbelieve is to be soley identified with just the ego self that apparently is born and will die with no real awareness of what it means to be immortal. Would this be fair to say? you can make moderations if it's off the mark.

The problem I see with this interpretation is that nothing in the text really supports it. It basically says something completely different. For example, "awareness" isn't even mentioned, and "belief" is not it. It also makes the object of "awareness" out to be "the self," which is also not at all suggested by the text. The text has the object of faith being Jesus Christ Himself, not the "self." And that's just the start of the departure.

...without knowing birth, you cannot know what is death...death being what's known as the second birth...is that fair to say? ....I'm interested in how you would say it IC?

No, this is not about natural birth. To see that, you have to read back a little earlier, and see what Nicodemus's question to Jesus actually was. He made the same mistake -- thinking natural birth might be in view. You'll see, though, that he was wrong.

Thanks for your reply IC...but I do not understand what you are saying to me, but thanks anyway.

.

[Dontaskme]

Immanuel ....does the baby in this photo KNOW it is alive and that one day it will die?
I cannot show you a real baby for obvious reasons, so I'm using the image as an example.

That's what I mean by saying there is no YOU to die or be born.

The ''you'' is born of the mind, an imposed conceptual overlay upon what's already being.

But there is no way to avoid this imposition since it's born of language that is unique to the image in the above picture.

That baby has no way of knowing anything, it is born without knowledge, all it's knowledge comes to it from the voice of others, which it then takes on as it's own, in the sense it comes to believe that it's knowledge is the way reality is.

So the question is...where does knowledge actually come from originally? .. since every person that comes into reality comes as a baby absent of any knowledge.

Do you see what I mean? and isn't that something we don't very often think about, in that we just take knowledge for granted ?

And so I came to the realisation that knowledge just informs the illusory nature of reality, in that there is no thing here that is living or dying, except in this conception, as concepts.

So even the sense that I am a person living a life is a concept that's not really a person living life at all. That person doesn't live, it is being lived.

Therefore THINKING is what creates an artificial phantom upon what's already living life all by itself all ALONE?

There is the sense of self. And yet a tiny baby has no sense of self but clearly it is operational in the world. The sense of self is the erroneous belief that the organism is the ORIGINATOR and DOER of actions. For example: "I am making a sandwich", "I will argue with PN posters today". The reality is that Reality/Oneness is making the sandwich so to speak. There are no separate doers, originators, authors, BUT THERE IS LIFE HAPPENING.

.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks for your reply IC...but I do not understand what you are saying to me, but thanks anyway.

Believe me, I get it. No problem.

It's in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

[Age]

By the way, was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?

Yes. The word "believe" is the same word in the Greek. Greek has essentially one word with two functions, that can be both noun and verb: English doesn't, so it has to translate it sometimes as "faith" and sometimes as "believe."

So, REALLY, although the actual Truth of things IS the answer, to the question, "was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?" IS 'No', from what you have explained here this makes sense. From what has been translated essentially the words 'faith' and 'believe' are synonymous.

What does 'faith in "jesus christ" even mean or entail?

It means complete reliance on the truthfulness of the one being trusted.

And, what is this 'God' thing, which 'you' speak of?

You are unfamiliar with the concept?

It is NOT that I am unfamiliar with the "concept". It is that the "concepts" given do NOT make sense. It is the way the "concept" is given that does NOT make any sense. If the given "concepts" made sense, then, OBVIOUSLY, 'you', human beings, would NOT still be disagreeing and/or fighting with each other about them.

How about Creator? Or Supreme Being? Or First Cause? What term makes sense to you?

Those terms make PERFECT SENSE, to me, but this is because I KNOW and UNDERSTAND ALL-OF-THIS. Those terms do NOT make sense to "others" because of the way they are wrong explained and understood. Because the concepts of those terms have so far NOT yet been explained reasonably, they will continue to NOT make sense to the majority of 'you', human beings.

Terms that make sense to me are; 'Mind' and 'Universe', as these terms and their concepts are able to be explained very simply and very easily.

The One 'Mind', in the Spiritual sense, is just the Supreme Being, Creator, First Cause.
The One 'Universe', in the physical sense, is just the Supreme Being, Creator, First Cause.

At least these terms, which make sense to me, are terms that can actually be sensed, measured, verified, AND proven, and thus can be reasonably explained and understood. The actual REAL concepts of the terms Supreme Being, Creator, First Cause can then also be explained and FULLY understood, by EVERY one.

Why use terms and concepts that 'you', human beings, are still, in the days of when this is written, squabbling over? Why do we just not use terms AND concepts that can actually be verified or falsified through science, instead of terms and concepts that for thousands upon thousands of years 'you', human beings, are still not yet able to explain and understand?

Does this make sense, to 'you'?

Are you saying that by just having 'faith', whatever that entails and actually means, in just one human being with the name "jesus christ" who was walking and talking over 2000 years, then some 'God' thing will give 'me' a gift of 'forgiveness', which will then allow me to not perish, and have everlasting life?

Not quite the way I'd put it, but essentially correct.

How about we put it in terms that would make sense for EVERY one; If EVERY human adult LISTENED TO and BELIEVED IN ALL children, and NOT just one human being, and allowed children to BE who they Truly ARE, then they would grow up with thee true understanding, which is what is NEEDED for true forgiveness, then the gift, which is what eternal Life, Itself, JUST IS anyway, would be FULLY understood and experienced anyway.

But this would only make sense to those that are Truly responsible and who have STOPPED listening to and believing in adults and STARTED listening to and believing in children instead. It is through the Honesty of new born children were eternal Life is learned AND rests.

In the current times, of when this is written, the young child is the only True One who can be trusted for complete reliance on Truthfulness.

Give the child what is NEEDS and It will Be the Supreme Be-ing, which 'you' seek.

I can fill that out for you.

What do you mean, "I can fill that out for you"?

If yes, then will you elaborate on this and explain it in a bit more detail?

Sure. But I'll need to see what you have as a concept of "God" first, if indeed its' a concept you don't know, so I'll know how to explain in an understandable way.

Okay. I have provided that previously as well as here in this post already as well.

Also, if you are going to use words like 'Supreme Being', 'Creator', 'you', 'me', 'I', and/or 'First Cause', as well as others, then I am going to ask you to explain them in terms that a child could even understand and make sense of. Obviously, those terms, as they stand, do NOT make sense.

[Age]

But to disbelieve is to be soley identified with just the ego self that apparently is born and will die with no real awareness of what it means to be immortal. Would this be fair to say? you can make moderations if it's off the mark.

The problem I see with this interpretation is that nothing in the text really supports it. It basically says something completely different. For example, "awareness" isn't even mentioned, and "belief" is not it.

To Truly BELIEVE IN God, or IN "jesus christ", then one would HAVE TO HAVE Awareness in who/what these things actually ARE. Otherwise who or what is 'it' exactly that one is actually BELIEVING IN?

It also makes the object of "awareness" out to be "the self," which is also not at all suggested by the text.

If 'Awareness' is NOT coming from a 'Self', then who/what/where could it be coming from?

The ridiculousness of saying some thing like, "Awareness comes from nothing", I hope does not need to be repeated.

The text has the object of faith being Jesus Christ Himself, not the "self." And that's just the start of the departure.

What is "jesus christ" if not a 'self'?

Also, the text has the object of faith IN "jesus christ", NOT 'being' "jesus christ". IF, as you say, 'faith' means complete reliance on the truthfulness of the one being trusted, then the 'object of faith' is 'in' one and NOT 'being' one.

One can BE Truthful and Honest, and thus be believed or have faith in. But one can NOT BE 'faith' itself. Therefore, "jesus christ" can NOT BE faith itself. But one can have faith IN "jesus christ".

...without knowing birth, you cannot know what is death...death being what's known as the second birth...is that fair to say? ....I'm interested in how you would say it IC?

No, this is not about natural birth. To see that, you have to read back a little earlier, and see what Nicodemus's question to Jesus actually was. He made the same mistake -- thinking natural birth might be in view. You'll see, though, that he was wrong.

However, a gift cannot be forced upon people, without it ceasing to be a gift and starting to be an act of violence against their will.

Thanks, I understand this, insofar as there is the choice to accept the gift or not. And this is what is meant by free will, we either accept the gift in it's entire package or we reject it, it's entirely our choice, yes that makes sense, thanks IC

Yes, that's right.

[Immanuel Can]

So, REALLY, although the actual Truth of things IS the answer, to the question, "was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?" IS 'No'.

Au contraire: it's "Yes," decidedly.

What part of what I said didn't you understand? I said, "Yes: it's the same word in the original Greek."

And, what is this 'God' thing, which 'you' speak of?

You are unfamiliar with the concept?

It is NOT that I am unfamiliar with the "concept". It is that the "concepts" given do NOT make sense.

Well, that's obviously not true. Lots of people can make sense of the concept. Is your argument that the concept doesn't refer to anything? That might be a possible argument, if you were inclined to make it...but to say the concept makes no sense is clearly untrue.

Because the concepts of those terms have so far NOT yet been explained reasonably, they will continue to NOT make sense to the majority of 'you', human beings.

And yet, 96% of the world's population remain open to the possibility that God not only "makes sense," but might "exist" as well. So you are arguing that they don't know what they're saying?

Does this make sense, to 'you'?

Not at all, I'm afraid.

I can fill that out for you.

What do you mean, "I can fill that out for you"?

Nothing insulting. I just meant, "if you have further questions, I'm open to hearing them and doing my best to answer."

If yes, then will you elaborate on this and explain it in a bit more detail?

Sure. But I'll need to see what you have as a concept of "God" first, if indeed its' a concept you don't know, so I'll know how to explain in an understandable way.

Okay. I have provided that previously as well as here in this post already as well.

I'm sorry...I missed it. What does the term "God" mean to you?

[Age]

Immanuel ....does the baby in this photo KNOW it is alive and that one day it will die?

Just because a baby does NOT consciously KNOW some thing or can NOT express what it KNOWS, does NOT infer any thing else here.

I cannot show you a real baby for obvious reasons, so I'm using the image as an example.

That's what I mean by saying there is no YOU to die or be born.

If this "logic" follows, then WHEN it KNOWS it is alive, and that one day it will die, then are 'you' saying that is when there IS now a YOU?

To 'me', 'you' are born WHEN 'thoughts' start arising within a human body.

'you' have even alluded to the FACT that there is NO 'you' to die or be born because a human baby does NOT yet KNOW this. When it does, then it is just knowledge, which is just 'thoughts', themselves.

Just because a new born human baby, supposedly, does NOT know that it is alive (and will "die" one day) does NOT mean that there is NO 'you'.

A new born human baby may be born with NO thoughts at all, but this just means that 'you' has NOT been born, or come to exist, yet.

What is A 'you' IS is just the non visible 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') within a visible physical body.

Also, but off topic, notice how it is perfectly all right to call a human baby an 'it', but calling an adult, God, or 'you' an 'it' is not well received, and some even find very offensive?

The ''you'' is born of the mind, an imposed conceptual overlay upon what's already being.

What does, "The "you" is born of the mind", actually mean?

What is this 'mind', which 'you' are supposedly born of?

Also, what that 'you' is 'trying to' explain is ALREADY KNOWN and can be explained in a much better way.

The very reason there is a HUGE and STRONG sense of SELF IS because there is a Real and True Self existing. This Self is just NOT what 'you', human beings, think and imagine it is.

But there is no way to avoid this imposition since it's born of language that is unique to the image in the above picture.

That baby has no way of knowing anything, it is born without knowledge, all it's knowledge comes to it from the voice of others, which it then takes on as it's own, in the sense it comes to believe that it's knowledge is the way reality is.

That is ONLY if it is taught TO BELIEVE things.

IF that human being remains OPEN always, then it would NOT believe that the knowledge, the thinking, within that body is the way reality is. IF it remains OPEN always, then it CAN and WILL SEE 'reality' for what It REALLY IS.

Also, that baby has an instinctual KNOWING, which it obviously is NOT conscious of, nor could express. This instinctual KNOWING is what ALL agree with, and which is what will lead us ALL to living in peace AND harmony. But all the other knowledge just comes to it through any or all of the five senses.

So the question is...where does knowledge actually come from originally?

What do you mean by 'originally'?

The knowledge, for example, that 'the earth revolves around the sun', instead of the other way around, originally came about/from when it was discovered. The other knowledge, however, for example, 'what is right and wrong in Life', which is intuitively/instinctively KNOWN did NOT come from anywhere. This KNOWledge just always exists.

.. since every person that comes into reality comes as a baby absent of any knowledge.

New born human bodies, or just prior to being born human bodies, are absent of thoughts, thinking knowledge. ALL of this knowledge is just learned, along the way, from what the body experiences. ALL human bodies, however, at EVERY stage has a KNOWING, or a KNOWN KNOWledge, This KNOWledge is inbuilt within the very genetics of physics.

Do you see what I mean? and isn't that something we don't very often think about, in that we just take knowledge for granted ?

Most of 'you', human beings, do NOT think about this. But also like what I have to share and reveal, just about none of 'you', human beings, actually have ever thought about.

And so I came to the realisation that knowledge just informs the illusory nature of reality, in that there is no thing here that is living or dying, except in this conception, as concepts.

Using words like, "I came to ..", when that 'I' also states and insists that there is NO 'I' is NEVER going to work.

Gaining the knowledge of what the 'I' IS, and how this 'I' is in relation to the little 'i', will HELP considerably in KNOWING what 'IT' actually IS, which 'you' are 'trying to' describe and explain.

How could 'knowledge' "just inform the illusory nature of reality"? Until 'you' explain this in a way that is Truly reasonable and Fully understood, then it is just nonsensical.

'you', "dontaskme", are SO CLOSE to understanding, and gaining, The Knowledge of the Tree of good and evil, (The Knowledge of Everything), but 'you' will NOT when you keep insisting that you ALREADY KNOW what you are talking about here.

The 'thing' that "realized" that "knowledge just informs the illusory nature of reality" IS the actual "illusory" thing that 'you' keep going on about. That 'thing' IS 'thoughts', themselves. Although 'thoughts' are NOT illusory in and of themselves, because they are actual things that exist, they are illusory in the sense that they ONLY 'think' (they know what is true and right). By their very nature 'thoughts' do NOT actually KNOW any thing. They just, literally, 'think' they do.

'KNOWING', KNOWS, 100% for sure, what IS True, Right, and Correct, and, what IS False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Whereas,
'thinking', thinks it knows what is true, right and correct, and what is false, wrong, and incorrect.

By its very nature, 'KNOWING' KNOWS what IS REAL, whereas the very nature of 'thinking' is it is just a perception of what is real, which actually could be completely WRONG anyway. 'Thinking' does NOT know. It is this 'thinking' 'perception of REALITY', which IS, by its nature, 'illusionary', as it is only imagining a 'reality'. Thinking does NOT know 'reality'.

The 'information', encoded within the genes, when decoded, will SHOW HOW that internal KNOWING/KNOWLEDGE of what IS REAL, within EVERY body, will ALWAYS override what is just 'thought' to be real.

The 'internal KNOWING', which IS absolutely True, RIGHT, and Correct can NOT be learned. It is fixed. KNOWING can just be recognized AND accepted only. This KNOWledge can be revealed, however, or brought to the attention, and thus be make AWARE of. It is either KNOWN Consciously or it is NOT. It is always KNOWN unconsciously, but not necessarily consciously.

The 'learned knowledge', however, is different. This knowledge can be absolutely ANY thing. it is always changing, and it can be completely and utterly WRONG as well

So even the sense that I am a person living a life is a concept that's not really a person living life at all. That person doesn't live, it is being lived.

The sense "I am a person living a life" is JUST a WRONG 'thought', or JUST WRONG knowledge, which has been wrongly learned, that is all.

There IS a 'person'. A unique and individual 'person' is JUST the unique and individual 'thoughts and emotions' within an unique and individual human body. This is just what a 'person' or little 'self' and little 'i' is.

This 'person' could then be said to be 'being lived'. 'Thinking and emotions' or 'people' just come and go, arise and fall, come into existence and exit, which is ALL happening in this one and only eternal Life, called Existence. thinking is NOT living a life, as you say. thinking is actually a result of the bodily experiences in Life, Itself.

Therefore THINKING is what creates an artificial phantom upon what's already living life all by itself all ALONE?

But THINKING does NOT just create any thing all by itself all ALONE. For thinking to occur a physical body and physical brain is NEEDED. What is also needed is senses within that physical body to transfer information or knowledge from outside that body to the working brain, which is then transformed into thoughts, or thinking knowledge of the "world" around it.

There is the sense of self. And yet a tiny baby has no sense of self

There is no sense of 'self' with a "tiny baby" because there is NOT any sufficient thoughts YET. But obviously a sense of 'self' soon arises with that always growing/developing/changing body.

but clearly it is operational in the world.

A blade of grass is operational in the world, but so what?

ALL 'life' is "operational" "in the world", and again so what? This has NO bearing on whether 'self' exists or not.

The sense of self is the erroneous belief that the organism is the ORIGINATOR and DOER of actions.

ALL erroneous BELIEF is just ANOTHER thought. 'thought' IS the ORIGINATOR and DOER of ALL behaviors (and for the moment ALL human actions).

For example: "I am making a sandwich", "I will argue with PN posters today". The reality is that Reality/Oneness is making the sandwich so to speak.

The saying, "I am ...", any thing other than what I Truly AM is just ANOTHER WRONG 'thought'. It is this SIMPLE.

The proper and correct Answer to the question, "Who am 'I'?" is the ONLY thing that can ACCURATELY follow the "I am ..." saying. EVERY thing else is just plain WRONG, which 'thoughts' usually ARE.

Also, the reality IS; A sandwich is being made in Reality/Oneness by a human being, and, Reality/Oneness is NOT making a sandwich at all.

Obviously Reality is a concept, and Oneness is EVERY thing as One, or just Everything.

The ONLY thing that can make sandwiches are human beings, and any other animal IF it has been trained to.

There are no separate doers, originators, authors, BUT THERE IS LIFE HAPPENING.

.

Although there is an EXPLICIT TRUTH in this. This is NEVER going to be FULLY understood as to human beings there is OBVIOUSLY separate things and doers. To 'you', human beings, these separate things and doers ARE 'you', human beings.

What 'you', the human being labeled "dontaskme" here in this forum, is 'trying to' explain CAN BE much easier explained AND understood, by just EXPRESSING what thee actual Truth of things ARE.

When the reason WHY there IS a perceived separation and WHY there REALLY IS NOT, then what is 'trying to' be explained CAN BE much better understood.

Also, I doubt you will get any disagreement that there is NOT Life happening, so this speaks for itself, but getting understood HOW there is NO actual separation is wee bit harder as just about EVERY human being is grown up being taught that there IS separation.

[Age]

So, REALLY, although the actual Truth of things IS the answer, to the question, "was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?" IS 'No'.

Au contraire: it's "Yes," decidedly.

What part of what I said didn't you understand? I said, "Yes: it's the same word in the original Greek."

What part of the actual question I asked did you NOT understand. READ 'john 3:16' AGAIN. The True and Right Answer to MY QUESTION is OBVIOUS.

Also, did you NOT read the rest of my sentence or did you just OVERLOOK IT? Because obviously IF you did READ it and SEE it, then you would have SEEN that I completely understood what you said.

You leaving OUT what I wrote hints that you MISSED IT completely, which would help in explaining your "clarifying question" here.

You are unfamiliar with the concept?

It is NOT that I am unfamiliar with the "concept". It is that the "concepts" given do NOT make sense.

Well, that's obviously not true. Lots of people can make sense of the concept.

And 'what concept' is that exactly?

Is your argument that the concept doesn't refer to anything?

Did I EVER make that "argument" OR even state this?

Did I EVEN make an "argument"?

I just said that the "concepts" given do NOT make sense. It would have been better if I made it clear that they do NOT make sense to me, and do NOT appear to make sense to any one else either. This is because no one has yet provided a logical and consistent concept that makes sense, to me.

That might be a possible argument, if you were inclined to make it...but to say the concept makes no sense is clearly untrue.

So;
HOW could there be a Creator of EVERY thing, referred to as 'God', and what is IT?
HOW could there be a Supreme Being, referred to as 'God', what is IT and how is actually Supreme?
HOW could there be a First Cause, referred to as 'God', what created what caused the First Cause?

Describe the concepts of these in a way that makes SENSE.

IF, and WHEN, you can do that, then WHY would ANY one be in disagreement with 'YOU'?

Because the concepts of those terms have so far NOT yet been explained reasonably, they will continue to NOT make sense to the majority of 'you', human beings.

And yet, 96% of the world's population remain open to the possibility that God not only "makes sense," but might "exist" as well. So you are arguing that they don't know what they're saying?

You have MISSED THE MARK in such a way I am finding this NEARLY unbelievable.

What do 'you' BELIEVE I am saying here?

In case 'you' are NOT yet AWARE, I am saying that God DOES MAKE SENSE, because God EXISTS. I am also saying this CAN BE PROVEN True very simply AND very easily.

But, as has been ALREADY proven for thousands upon thousands of years hitherto, God does NOT make sense and can NOT be proven to exist BECAUSE of the way the CURRENT terms AND concepts of God are expressed and shared.

Does this make sense, to 'you'?

Not at all, I'm afraid.

Fair enough.

What part of:
Why use terms and concepts that 'you', human beings, are still, in the days of when this is written, squabbling over? Why do we just not use terms AND concepts that can actually be verified or falsified through science, instead of terms and concepts that for thousands upon thousands of years 'you', human beings, are still not yet able to explain and understand?
does NOT make sense, to you?

They are just two very simple clarifying questions. I am NOT sure how these two questions could NOT make sense, at all, to an adult human being who writes on a philosophy forum.

There MUST BE some thing very WRONG with the way I write AND communicate if these two SIMPLE questions do NOT makes sense, AT ALL.

I can fill that out for you.

What do you mean, "I can fill that out for you"?

Nothing insulting. I just meant, "if you have further questions, I'm open to hearing them and doing my best to answer."

Do you think/believe I am asking 'you' "immanuel can" clarifying questions because I think 'you' will be able to give me the answers, which NO other human being has been able to provide yet?

If yes, then 'you' are WRONG.

I am asking 'you' clarifying questions to gauge how OPEN or NOT 'you' ARE as well as to SEE how much 'you' REALLY KNOW or just THINK you know.

Sure. But I'll need to see what you have as a concept of "God" first, if indeed its' a concept you don't know, so I'll know how to explain in an understandable way.

Okay. I have provided that previously as well as here in this post already as well.

I'm sorry...I missed it. What does the term "God" mean to you?

Seriously?

IF you MISSED this part, then you COULD NOT HAVE read what I wrote.

I could NOT have made it more CLEARER what I have as a concept of 'God'.

Either you are purposely making out you MISSED it, or you REALLY did NOT read ALL of what I wrote.

Some would be wondering if you really are just 'trying to' get out of responding here now?

Also, IF you BELIEVE you can explain a concept of God in an understandable way, then WHY has NO human being been able to do this previously?

What is YOUR concept of God that YOU think/believe you can explain in an understandable way?

I look forward to YOUR response.

[Dontaskme]

Thanks for your reply IC...but I do not understand what you are saying to me, but thanks anyway.

Believe me, I get it. No problem.

It's in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

ok thanks.

So the bible message means to surrender to death is to the faithful believer like a dying to be saved, ok I get that, so thanks. It's similar to what I said, albeit in a different way. In the sense that in order to have eternal life I have to die to the fleshy life, the temporal life first, and have faith in that dying as being the only entrance to eternity?

And so Knowledge then is what gives rise to the unseen unknown phantom self that is the eternal God, and that knowledge is of God and not of the flesh ??

You don't have to reply to me IC if this is a chore or bores you.



.

[Dontaskme]

There is no YOU because there is no OTHER than YOU

Only ''thoughts'' are born and die not YOU. ''Thoughts' are temporal appearances in YOU - but NOT you.

[Dontaskme]

As long as there is a 'you' doing or not-doing, thinking or not-thinking, meditating, or not-meditating, you are no closer to home than the day you were born.

Homelessness if your home. Selflessness if your self.

[Immanuel Can]

So, REALLY, although the actual Truth of things IS the answer, to the question, "was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?" IS 'No'.

Au contraire: it's "Yes," decidedly.

What part of what I said didn't you understand? I said, "Yes: it's the same word in the original Greek."

What part of the actual question I asked did you NOT understand.

None, actually. I'm sorry...you're going to have to explain to me how using the same Greek word in the original text is not using the same word.

It is NOT that I am unfamiliar with the "concept". It is that the "concepts" given do NOT make sense.

Well, that's obviously not true. Lots of people can make sense of the concept.

And 'what concept' is that exactly?

The concept "God."

That might be a possible argument, if you were inclined to make it...but to say the concept makes no sense is clearly untrue.

So;
HOW could there be a Creator of EVERY thing, referred to as 'God', and what is IT?

Well, that's a totally different question.

When we ask, "Does the concept make sense?" We are not asking, "Does the thing the concept refers to exist?" The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist.

Is it possible you've mixed those two questions up?

HOW could there be a First Cause, referred to as 'God', what created what caused the First Cause?

I can give you a slam-dunk argument for this. It's the absolute and mathematically certain impossibility of an infinite regress of causes. One thing both secularists and Theists agree upon entirely, if they believe in linear time, is that there had to be a first cause...even if they don't agree upon what that first cause was.

Am I making this too difficult? Feel free to ask, if I am.

IF, and WHEN, you can do that, then WHY would ANY one be in disagreement with 'YOU'?

Because some people are already so resistant to the idea of God, for reasons of their own, that they will not accept even a slam-dunk argument.

What do 'you' BELIEVE I am saying here?

Honestly, I don't know what you're saying here.

In case 'you' are NOT yet AWARE, I am saying that God DOES MAKE SENSE, because God EXISTS. I am also saying this CAN BE PROVEN True very simply AND very easily.

If that's what you're saying, fine.

But, as has been ALREADY proven for thousands upon thousands of years hitherto, God does NOT make sense and can NOT be proven to exist BECAUSE of the way the CURRENT terms AND concepts of God are expressed and shared.

This claim, I do not understand. You'll have to explain how both it and the previous comment you made just above it can possibly be true together. They appear totally contradictory.

What part of:
Why use terms and concepts that 'you', human beings, are still, in the days of when this is written, squabbling over? Why do we just not use terms AND concepts that can actually be verified or falsified through science, instead of terms and concepts that for thousands upon thousands of years 'you', human beings, are still not yet able to explain and understand?
does NOT make sense, to you?

Because "squabbling" doesn't mean both sides are right. Neither does the passing of time make it more or less likely; it remains impossible, for logical reasons. If what the two sides are having is a genuine contradiction, it means that either one or both sides are wrong: but one may be right. In this case, I think one is.

Moreover, they're not "squabbling" over the concept. They both understand what it is they're disagreeing about. They're squabbling over the exact nature of the Being the various sides believe in. In other words, 96% of the human race still thinks they understand the concept.

There MUST BE some thing very WRONG with the way I write AND communicate if these two SIMPLE questions do NOT makes sense, AT ALL.

Can I be frank? Or will you feel offended?

I'll try.

I think that maybe you have trouble detecting ambiguity. I'm not being insulting -- I'm suggesting it based on your writing style, as I've seen it. It looks to me as though what seems a straightforward question to you, because you feel it to be clear in your own mind, is perhaps not as clear to the recipient, because it contains words and phrases that can be understood in more than one way.

Just telling you the truth here. It might help you have more fruitful conversations if you were aware of that tendency.

What do you mean, "I can fill that out for you"?

Nothing insulting. I just meant, "if you have further questions, I'm open to hearing them and doing my best to answer."

Do you think/believe I am asking 'you' "immanuel can" clarifying questions because I think 'you' will be able to give me the answers, which NO other human being has been able to provide yet?

I don't know why not. I'm sure there are some things you could tell me that I don't already know. Why would it be surprising to you if I could do likewise for you?

I am asking 'you' clarifying questions to gauge how OPEN or NOT 'you' ARE as well as to SEE how much 'you' REALLY KNOW or just THINK you know.

Oh. That's all? Well, I'm not much interested in that, I confess. If that's all you wish to do, I'm happy to move on and talk to other people.

I could NOT have made it more CLEARER what I have as a concept of 'God'.

I'm certain you could have made it much clearer, actually.

Either you are purposely making out you MISSED it, or you REALLY did NOT read ALL of what I wrote.

This is what I mean by you having difficulty perceiving the ambiguity of your own phrasing and wording.

Some would be wondering if you really are just 'trying to' get out of responding here now?

Then that "some" would be mistaking requests for clarification for evasions.

Also, IF you BELIEVE you can explain a concept of God in an understandable way, then WHY has NO human being been able to do this previously?

I don't believe no human being has been able to "explain the concept of God." I think many have.

What is YOUR concept of God that YOU think/believe you can explain in an understandable way?

Well, I tried to make it as simple as I could, by using the terms "First Cause" and "Supreme Being," but you didn't like either one, apparently. I'm not sure I can simplify it more than by reducing it to two words. Maybe "Creator," which is only one word...but shorter than that, I cannot possibly make it. There isn't a way to make a definition of less than one word.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks for your reply IC...but I do not understand what you are saying to me, but thanks anyway.

Believe me, I get it. No problem.

It's in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

ok thanks.

So the bible message means to surrender to death is to the faithful believer like a dying to be saved...

No, I'm sorry...that's not even close. Here's the verse, and its context:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

[Age]

Au contraire: it's "Yes," decidedly.

What part of what I said didn't you understand? I said, "Yes: it's the same word in the original Greek."

What part of the actual question I asked did you NOT understand.

None, actually. I'm sorry...you're going to have to explain to me how using the same Greek word in the original text is not using the same word.

But the same greek word in the original text was NOT in question. The 'faith' word in the provide 'john 3:16' text is what was in question. This can be very easily verified True by the actual question, the question being; Was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?

The answer is NO. This is because the 'faith' word IS OBVIOUSLY NOT in there. The 'believeth' word was, as well as the other about 24 words that were in there, were in there. BUT thee 'faith' word was NOT in there. Surely the EVIDENCE and PROOF for this could be very easily VERIFIED. The actual writings are HERE for ALL to SEE.

Also I have ALREADY told you and EXPLAINED to you that; from what you have explained here this makes sense. From what has been translated essentially the words 'faith' and 'believe' are synonymous. is this UNDERSTOOD, by you?

Well, that's obviously not true. Lots of people can make sense of the concept.

And 'what concept' is that exactly?

The concept "God."

So you BELIEVE that the one word "concept" God, makes sense to a lot of human beings, correct?

I suppose the concept 'Feces' also makes sense to a lot of human beings, but I can understand why this would be case. The concept 'Feces' would make sense because 'Feces' can actually be touched, sensed, AND experienced, by lots of human beings. Whereas, I do NOT understand WHY the concept 'God' makes sense to a supposedly lot of people. What is it that they actually touch, sense, and/or experience that has led them to have a sense of what 'God' IS EXACTLY?

For example, what is 'it' that 'you', "immanuel can" have actually experienced, sensed, and/or touched, that has let 'you' to a concept of God, which makes 'you' BELIEVE 'God' is some real thing?

That might be a possible argument, if you were inclined to make it...but to say the concept makes no sense is clearly untrue.

So;
HOW could there be a Creator of EVERY thing, referred to as 'God', and what is IT?

Well, that's a totally different question.

It does NOT matter. It is the question being asked now. So WHY do you NOT just answer it?

When we ask, "Does the concept make sense?" We are not asking, "Does the thing the concept refers to exist?" The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist.

Well there is NO obviousness that God, from your perspective, does exist. In fact the concept God, from your perspective, appears to be an impossibility to exist.

Is it possible you've mixed those two questions up?

It is OBVIOUS that 'you' are just 'trying to' deflect, ONCE AGAIN. This is most likely due to the FACT that 'you' are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of explaining any thing in a way that makes sense.

Picking and choosing what questions to add and respond to here is a sign of an INABILITY to back up and support one's claims.

What is the concept 'God', which makes sense, to you?
What is the thing the concept 'God' refers to, to you? And,
Does the thing the concept 'God' refers to, to you, exist?

You say; The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist. So, what is the concept 'God' that 'you' understand? And, if obviously 'zeus' does not at all exist, then what proof is there that 'God' does exist or does not at all exist?

HOW could there be a First Cause, referred to as 'God', what created what caused the First Cause?

I can give you a slam-dunk argument for this.

But I do NOT want a "slam-dunk" argument. I just want a sound AND valid argument.

It's the absolute and mathematically certain impossibility of an infinite regress of causes.

But an infinite regress of causes IS NOT an absolute and mathematically certain impossibility at all. So, 'your' argument is "slam-dunked", although it NEVER was an actual argument at all.

Obviously IF there is an effect, then there was A cause. Therefore, cause and effect backwards can NOT stop NOR begin some where.

One thing both secularists and Theists agree upon entirely, if they believe in linear time, is that there had to be a first cause

But WHY would any one BELIEVE or AGREE upon entirely on some thing that has NOT been proven to be true yet?

Besides 'you', "immanuel can", I have yet to find any one "else" who AGREES, let alone AGREES ENTIRELY, that there HAD TO BE a first cause.

Even just the idea of 'first cause' without absolutely any thing that could even provide a clue as to how a first cause could even happen is, to me anyway, NOT some thing I can yet see.

...even if they don't agree upon what that first cause was.

Am I making this too difficult? Feel free to ask, if I am.

"too difficult" in regards to what EXACTLY?

To me, 'you' appear to be thousands of years in the past, with that thinking.

IF, and WHEN, you can do that, then WHY would ANY one be in disagreement with 'YOU'?

Because some people are already so resistant to the idea of God, for reasons of their own, that they will not accept even a slam-dunk argument.

Can some people also already be so insistent to the idea of God, "for reasons of their own", that they will not accept any thing else either, including even thee Truth?

Or does this only apply to those that are 'resistant' to the idea of God?

What do 'you' BELIEVE I am saying here?

Honestly, I don't know what you're saying here.

This appeared to be the case.

In case 'you' are NOT yet AWARE, I am saying that God DOES MAKE SENSE, because God EXISTS. I am also saying this CAN BE PROVEN True very simply AND very easily.

If that's what you're saying, fine.

But, as has been ALREADY proven for thousands upon thousands of years hitherto, God does NOT make sense and can NOT be proven to exist BECAUSE of the way the CURRENT terms AND concepts of God are expressed and shared.

This claim, I do not understand. You'll have to explain how both it and the previous comment you made just above it can possibly be true together. They appear totally contradictory.

Yes they appear totally contradictory. This is because of the way I purposely write, to promote curiosity. Thank you for your OPEN inquisitiveness here now.

The reason WHY I say that the word 'God' does make sense is because 'God' does exist is because of the way God was SHOWN to me, and thus PROVEN to be True and Real.

The concept I have of 'God' now, which is very different from the one that was passed on for thousands of years and taught to me, CAN BE proven to EXIST. Whereas, obviously, the old concept had NEVER been able to be PROVEN to be real.

Does that clear up the apparent contradiction?

What part of:
Why use terms and concepts that 'you', human beings, are still, in the days of when this is written, squabbling over? Why do we just not use terms AND concepts that can actually be verified or falsified through science, instead of terms and concepts that for thousands upon thousands of years 'you', human beings, are still not yet able to explain and understand?
does NOT make sense, to you?

Because "squabbling" doesn't mean both sides are right.

It also does NOT mean either "side" is right?

By the way there is NO "sides" in THIS.

Neither does the passing of time make it more or less likely; it remains impossible, for logical reasons.

"passing of time" was NEVER in question. Also WHAT remains impossible? And, what are these supposed "logical reasons" WHY, whatever it is, remains impossible?

If what the two sides are having is a genuine contradiction, it means that either one or both sides are wrong: but one may be right. In this case, I think one is.

But BOTH "sides" can be VERIFIED and PROVEN to be either true or false. LOOKING AT this from another perspective DOES REVEAL what IS actually True and Right.

Moreover, they're not "squabbling" over the concept. They both understand what it is they're disagreeing about. They're squabbling over the exact nature of the Being the various sides believe in. In other words, 96% of the human race still thinks they understand the concept.

And are 'you' ever going to reveal to 'us' readers here what this actual 'concept' IS, which you frequently mention?

There MUST BE some thing very WRONG with the way I write AND communicate if these two SIMPLE questions do NOT makes sense, AT ALL.

Can I be frank? Or will you feel offended?

I am NEVER offended.

I'll try.

I think that maybe you have trouble detecting ambiguity. I'm not being insulting -- I'm suggesting it based on your writing style, as I've seen it. It looks to me as though what seems a straightforward question to you, because you feel it to be clear in your own mind,

I do NOT have a "mind".

is perhaps not as clear to the recipient, because it contains words and phrases that can be understood in more than one way.

Thank you profusely for explaining this to me.

Just telling you the truth here. It might help you have more fruitful conversations if you were aware of that tendency.

So, how do I now communicate with words and phrases that can be understood in just one way?

For example; you said to me that my two questions posed to you "Make NO sense at all", to you. So, will you explain to me what words and phrases in my two questions that could be understood by you in more than one way?

Q1. Why use terms and concepts that 'you', human beings, are still, in the days of when this is written, squabbling over?

Q2. Why do we just not use terms AND concepts that can actually be verified or falsified through science, instead of terms and concepts that for thousands upon thousands of years 'you', human beings, are still not yet able to explain and understand?

What is NOT clear in these two sentences, to you?

What exactly is the ambiguity that you detect, which I can NOT?

My first question here actually relates to WHY are 'you', human beings, still using words and phrases that can be ambiguous, which is what is leading 'you' to still be "squabbling" over things, which 'you', human beings, have been for thousands upon thousands of years now?

My second question here actually relates to WHY do 'you', human beings, not START using words and phrases that are NOT ambiguous, which would then be able to be verified as being true and right, or falsified as being false and wrong, instead of using the old ambiguous words and phrases that you have been for thousands upon thousands of years.

So, as I am questioning you about WHY 'you', human beings, use words and phrases that are ambiguous, which is the cause of your thousand year squabbles, I am at the same time being accused of NOT making ANY sense at all, because of my "trouble of detecting ambiguity". Seems rather 'paradoxical', and quite amusing.

Nothing insulting. I just meant, "if you have further questions, I'm open to hearing them and doing my best to answer."

Do you think/believe I am asking 'you' "immanuel can" clarifying questions because I think 'you' will be able to give me the answers, which NO other human being has been able to provide yet?

I don't know why not. I'm sure there are some things you could tell me that I don't already know. Why would it be surprising to you if I could do likewise for you?

Because the questions I am asking I ALREADY KNOW the proper and correct Answers to.

'you', however, can provide me of YOUR view on things, but 'you' OBVIOUSLY could NOT give me the proper AND correct Answer, which would be irrefutable and agreed with by EVERY one. The reason you OBVIOUSLY could NOT give me this Answer is because 'you' would have by now, if you could.

I am asking 'you' clarifying questions to gauge how OPEN or NOT 'you' ARE as well as to SEE how much 'you' REALLY KNOW or just THINK you know.

Oh. That's all? Well, I'm not much interested in that, I confess. If that's all you wish to do, I'm happy to move on and talk to other people.

Most people usually are "happy to move on" when they are challenged on things, by me.

And using what I write is a "perfect alibi", for them, to "justify" to themselves WHY they do not wish to answer my clarifying questions.

If some one makes a claim like: God exists (or even does NOT exist), then I expect them to be ABLE TO back that claim up.

I CAN back up ANY and ALL claims I make. I also LOVE to be questioned AND challenged over absolutely EVERY thing that I say, write, AND claim.

But then again 'I' am CERTAINLY NOT like one of 'you', human beings.

I could NOT have made it more CLEARER what I have as a concept of 'God'.

I'm certain you could have made it much clearer, actually.

WHY?

You HAVE NO idea what I actually said, so how could you KNOW I could have made that much clearer, actually?

Either you are purposely making out you MISSED it, or you REALLY did NOT read ALL of what I wrote.

This is what I mean by you having difficulty perceiving the ambiguity of your own phrasing and wording.

But there was NO ambiguity in what I wrote, in relation to this. You just NEVER saw what I wrote.

Some would be wondering if you really are just 'trying to' get out of responding here now?

Then that "some" would be mistaking requests for clarification for evasions.

But 'you' are NOT requesting clarification.

You are admitting that you have NOT seen and thus MISSED what I wrote, correct?

Also, IF you BELIEVE you can explain a concept of God in an understandable way, then WHY has NO human being been able to do this previously?

I don't believe no human being has been able to "explain the concept of God." I think many have.

Well you will NOT give us "your concept of God" so will you tell us how many have "explained the concept of God"?

Of would you like to keep that a secret as well?

What is YOUR concept of God that YOU think/believe you can explain in an understandable way?

Well, I tried to make it as simple as I could, by using the terms "First Cause" and "Supreme Being," but you didn't like either one, apparently.

You REALLY have NOT read what I wrote, did you?

I actually used 'your' "First Cause" and "Supreme Being" terms in 'my' explanation of terms and concepts.

So, what EXACTLY has given 'you' some idea that I did NOT like either terms, apparently?

I'm not sure I can simplify it more than by reducing it to two words. Maybe "Creator," which is only one word...but shorter than that, I cannot possibly make it. There isn't a way to make a definition of less than one word.

You OBVIOUSLY provided these three BEFORE, which I have OBVIOUSLY asked you IF you can further elaborate on or explain. OBVIOUSLY you can NOT. So, now we are STUCK where 'you', human beings, have been STUCK for thousands upon thousands of years. That is; completely AND utterly incapable of explaining what it is that 'you' are ALL so desperate to explain.

'you' want to INSIST that a "First Cause", a "Creator", and/or a "Supreme Being" exists. So all you have to do now is just explain HOW they COULD exist.

I CAN explain, and have explained, HOW God exists. I can also explain WHY God actually exists, that is; IF we ever get to that stage. 'you', human beings, are ever so slow and tiresome. At the rate 'you', human beings, move now 'you' will ALL be extinct before thee Truth can be revealed to 'you'.