As above so below

WHAT WAS TAHT WHAT WAS THAT waht does that mean?

 

Wise? Almost any child can tell you the difference between good and evil.

Very good, now perhaps you can tell what the context for them are and what they mean.

 

Is your reading comprehension really that low? Nowhere in that post did I say that this is what the word God means, I said this is what Webster's says it means.

Once again, nowhere did I say "this is the only definition that counts", I merely asked where you got your definition, because Webster's does not give what you says as a definition.

Again, what you show here, also proves that "that which is invoked" is not a definition given.

As for the Old English meaning, that is is not the language that we speak today and although many of those words may still be in use today, that does not mean that they have the same or even similar meanings today.

 

I have nothing to do with whether anyone is a disciple of Christ or not. that is up to God and Jesus to decide and the "litmus test", if you will, is the Bible and what it says.

 

Why would you live in a fantasy land, when we already live in a land of magic?

 

I would say to you something like; "Beloved one, be an imitator, not of what is bad, but of what is good. He that does good originates with God. He that does bad has not seen God." but seeing as you seem to be saying there is no such thing as good or bad, it seems pointless.

 

You would be allowed in but you already think you know it all.

The question is not and never has been what I think of you or your beliefs, the question is what God thinks of them. I have only pointed out where you deviate from what God, though his word the Bible, has said.

 

How do you explain those who are not "beings of the light, and love"?

 

Yet again, do you deny the Bible is alive?

 

What?

That's my question for Christians, the ones who tell you to imitate because you aren't actually god's children.

I think you took it as me saying you weren't. You are.

If that thought is incorrect....

I explain those that you assume to be not of the light and love, because they have committed hanus acts, as letting themselves being consumed by the individual experience.. They come from the same source, obviously, but are infected by a mind out of check with the spirit. It is quite simple...

I suggest you read The Shack, it's not a book to declare truth but to offer a new and worldly perspective on the holy trinity and the origin of pain, suffering, violence, etc. It's supportive of Christianity, not intending to discredit it. Although it discredits many view points commonly accepted as Christian.

 

The bible is alive in the minds of many, and through the theory of relativism it holds truth in many peoples lives, but as is religion's original intent is pointing to something beyond ourselves, it is just another possession of the mind to fade, just words.

 

He that does bad has not seen God. He sins, misses God's sign, reacts to the world as though it were full of things that God did not create. What is the good we would imitate? Only God is good.

And so it is.
In this world, God is the only measure of good.
Waterbrother, what bad thing do you think I do?

 

"By this shall all men know that ye are my desciples,if ye have love one to another."

 

Absolutely. the bible is a book, the word of God is a living word.

 

No, didn't think you were talking about me.

Obviously, from what you had said, you believe that everyone is a being "of the light and love".

Also if what you were saying is "they come from the same source", meaning that God is the source of all life then I agree with you.

I was wondering about those who seem to have abandoned that source and live lives that seem to be anything but "light and love". What is your explanation?

As for a book that explains "the origin of pain, suffering, violence, etc", the Bible does a very nice job of that. And the "holy trinity" is not a Bible teaching.

 

Oh I said something, I just didn't say; "that this is what the word God means".

Nope, look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls if you want.

I gave the single definition that seemed applicable, I wasn't trying to give you "the" definition but only a comparison to your definition.

The root sometimes helps to understand the word in question but is not in of itself a definition of that word, as it is used today.

I say that we should look at the language of the word in time that it was used and since you used the word "today" we should take a look at what it means today and not a thousand years ago.

 

Darkstarlight, relativism is a joke. Truth means "in accordance with reality." Either the bible is the word of god or it isn't. It cannot truly be god's words to one person and truly not to another.

 

This is where you get hung up. All conjugations are applicable when defining a word. Not just the one you think applies.

It most certainly is a current and useful definition that accounts for all conjugations of the word. God is one who is invoked. You call upon God and you look for goodness. The root points to the embodied nature, what does it look like when we wear it, put it on, say it with our own mouths.

The root meaning is still entirely contemporary. It still means the same thing and it accounts for every other meaning assigned to it.