On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses
to manifes

Trying to twist my words around again idiot? I never said that I am
forcing God into any manifestation. I said that the Bible does not
contain a single example of God manifesting himself as God. Hence,
there is no reference for what God is or can be considered in the
physical world. We have to deal with the sources of information
on God in the Judeo-Christian belief system and the Bible is the
main source.

How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests?

Bible - see above.

According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible.

Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality,
where you are at a loss.

Non sequitur.

So your assumption is that some idiot like yourself that reads an
arbitrary English Bible knows at least as much or more than a group
of scholars that spend their lives studying the Bible in many
different source languages? Get a clue.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses
to manifes

Trying to twist my words around again idiot?

No, you do that quite successfully all by yourself.

I never said that I am
forcing God into any manifestation. I said that the Bible does not
contain a single example of God manifesting himself as God.

Well, you're still wrong.

Hence,
there is no reference for what God is or can be considered in the
physical world.

Wrong.

We have to deal with the sources of information
on God in the Judeo-Christian belief system and the Bible is the
main source.

How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests?

Bible - see above.

Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of
God in the Bible, you must therefore be woefully ignorant of the contents or
simply too stupid to understand what is written.


According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible.

Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality,
where you are at a loss.

Non sequitur.

So your assumption is that some idiot like yourself that reads an
arbitrary English Bible knows at least as much or more than a group
of scholars that spend their lives studying the Bible in many
different source languages?

Not necessarily, but I certainly know more about it than you do. So do most
ten year old Sunday School children.

Get a clue.

I'll take "Theology" for $800.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of
God in the Bible,

Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of
your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God _as_God_"

If you can't cope with that, it's your problem.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of
God in the Bible,

Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of
your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God _as_God_"

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does,
your statement is non sequitur.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does,

I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He
chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God
manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. All
manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc.

You don't get it, you never will.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself,
God does,

I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way
He
chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God
manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. All
manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc.

You don't get it, you never will.

Mike

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know
that it is God that did this? TnT

On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know
that it is God that did this

If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something
that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any
other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that
"God" would be my first guess.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does,

I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He
chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God
manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself.

Really? How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as
himself? Any cites which describe the "true manifestation" of God? Wouldn't
a biblical constraint on how God may manifest himself as "himself" be rather
limiting to, well, God? Why would God so restrict himself?

He wouldn't.

You are merely trying to impose an artificial limitation on the "legitimate"
manifestations of God as "himself" in order to tautologically support your
unsupportable argument.

All
manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc.

Well, since God is omnipotent and omnipresent (according to dogma), it would
seem to me that God can "be" anything he wants. In fact, he can (and indeed
is by many definitions) be EVERYTHING at once if he wants. He is, after all,
without limitation by definition. Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man,
or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself.

You don't get it, you never will.

No, quite clearly, you don't get it. It is possible, however, that you
someday will.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as
himself?

How about if it _says_ so. Try reading the Bible - it does describe
these things. And nowhere does it say "this is what God looks like".

Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man,
or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself.

Once again, you prefer playing with words instead of addressing
the issue directly. If he manifests himself as a man, we cannot
tell it is God. That is exactly my point. We need a manifestation
that we can clearly identify as God and the Bible offers nothing
to help that.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, given that there are many examples of the various
manifestations of
God in the Bible,

Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of
your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God
_as_God_"

If you can't cope with that, it's your problem.

Michael, if you can cope with me and humor me a little, I would like to
ask you a few questions. You have addressed most of your post directly
to Scott, and if you do not wish to engage me, I will understand, and
respect yours and Scotts conversation.

I have been watching this particular thread with interest, as I spent
the last couple days frittering away my time with KMAN and rick. I saw
they are at it again tonight, and I decided to deal with something that
sounds much more interesting. You have been conversing with Scott since
2/21 and seem to be trying to get to some point that I am curious
about, but have not been able to acertain exactly what that point is.
It seems that you are saying something that is going over Scotts head
or experience. I believe that he has admitted that he is not a
particularly religious person, so his arguement is primarily academic.
You seem to be saying something more.

You have said, "no manifestations of God _as_God_", which I find to be
a very intrigueing statement. Are you arguing as well from an academic
position, or do you have something more in mind. I am not sure that
Scott can go beyond the academics on this subject. Are you really
interested, curious, or just playing head games with Scott?

I have included the link to the word "theophanies", and which gives a
brief study of the word.

http://www.carm.org/misc/plurality.htm

You say the theophanies are not really God_as_God appearing in this
world, time and space. Do you have some other particular incident in
mind, either past, present or future, that would accomplish the
desirable and acceptable level of verifiable proof to be considered not
only evidence, but God_as God revelation?

Have you experienced any such incident that is inspiring this line of
discussion, so as to be able to describe in a meaningful way for us?

Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the
separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now dwell,
and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has ever,
or will ever occur?

If you could answer these questions, I would be interested in
continuing with your discussion later. TnT